Oral Answers to Questions

ENVIRONMENT, FOOD AND RURAL AFFAIRS

The Secretary of State was asked—

Lead Industry

Eric Illsley: If she will make a statement on the application of the integrated pollution prevention and control regulations to the lead industry.

Michael Meacher: The regulations apply the requirements of the 1996 directive on integrated pollution prevention and control to many installations at which the production, melting or recovery of lead is carried out. These requirements cover potential pollution risks to air, water and land. Criteria for the application of the requirements are based on the precise nature of the activity.

Eric Illsley: I am grateful to my right hon. Friend. The Government have decided that the lead industry will have to comply with the IPPC regulations before 2007, the date set by the EU. That is placing a burden on the industry; companies that have registered under the regulations have encountered considerable delays on behalf of the Environment Agency in obtaining registration. The twin elements of delays and costs are placing burdens on the usually small companies involved in lead processing. Will my right hon. Friend provide some further assistance to those companies in reducing the burdens?

Michael Meacher: We certainly want to do that, if we can. Phasing in the different sectors in an orderly and sensible way is the only practicable way to meet the target of permitting more than 6,000 installations in England and Wales by October 2007. If we left the permitting to the last possible moment, it would place an enormous burden on regulators and require them to take on large numbers of extra staff for a short time. I am concerned about what my hon. Friend says about registration. There should be no additional delays, but the window for the phasing-in of particular sectors is largely determined by the expected availability of the best available techniques reference documents, which are produced by the European Commission with input from member states. I shall look at the matter again and see whether we can give any assistance to the industry.

Patrick McLoughlin: The Minister is fond of recycling, but is he aware that one of our largest car battery recycling plants is Endhoven's in Darley Dale, which recycles some 80 per cent. of car batteries in this country? Will he ensure that the regulations do not interfere with that process, so that we can maintain our good recycling record in this sector?

Michael Meacher: I am keen to encourage the good recycling plants that exist in many parts of the country, and to generate the many more that we will need if we are to meet the doubling and trebling of recycling targets that I have set down. The directive applies to about 6,000 installations, as I said. They have to meet the IPPC requirements, but most already operate in accordance with best available techniques not entailing excessive cost. As they should be meeting those standards, there should be no problem for most existing plants.

Bob Blizzard: Does my right hon. Friend agree that the general public will feel that pollution from the lead industry is relatively insignificant compared with the pollution from oil tankers that spill their loads? They blacken the environment and the name of the oil industry, which my right hon. Friend knows I support. How can we get better international regulation of those oil tankers?

Mr. Speaker: Order. I call Chris Grayling.

Animal Welfare

Chris Grayling: If she will make a statement on the long distance transportation of animals.

Elliot Morley: The Government would prefer a trade in meat to the long-distance transporting of animals for slaughter, and we are encouraging the livestock sector in that direction.

Chris Grayling: I thank the Minister for that reply. He will know of the great concern about this matter felt by people across the country. Although he is keen to stress that any future action must not disadvantage our farmers, does he accept that people feel that the Government have failed to negotiate effective solutions with our European partners, and that they should get a move on and do so?

Elliot Morley: I assure the hon. Gentleman that the Government consider that, in the normal patterns of the livestock industry, the movement of live animals should be minimised. Of course we must look at our industry's needs when it comes to movements and take into account special cases such as offshore islands, but, generally speaking, we believe that animals should go to the nearest available slaughterhouse. The trade in this country should be a carcase trade. The added value accruing to those animals should go to this country and it should not be exported abroad.

David Taylor: I welcome what my right hon. Friend says, but the live export trade imposes chronic, extreme and high-volume cruelty on hundreds of thousands of sentient beings every year. Should not we go one step further? Should we not ban that trade and replace it with the export of meat and carcases only? Can we not work more effectively within the EU to require animals to be slaughtered as close as possible to the farm of rearing?

Elliot Morley: I agree that a carcase trade is the preference that we should support. However, I emphasise that the live animal trade is legal within the rules of the single market and it has been tested in the courts. Our record on enforcement and management is very good; we want to see the standards of the best being applied to all European countries.

James Gray: Everyone will agree with the Minister about the desirability of the shortest possible journeys from breeding and upbringing to slaughter, but does he agree that one of the greatest tragedies of the countryside in recent years, which he needs to explain, is that since the Labour Government came to power some 336 local slaughterhouses—40 per cent. of the total—have been forced to close? Does he agree with me and his own rural White Paper that that is a result of gross over-regulation by the Government?

Elliot Morley: No, I do not agree. If the hon. Gentleman wants to make a political point, let me tell him that it would be impossible to close as many small slaughterhouses as were closed under the previous Conservative Government because not enough are left in the country. Regulation is not the only reason for closure under this Government—the market, unit costs and the fact that some of the slaughterhouses have got bigger are also issues. Of course we want to support a proper distribution of slaughterhouses, which is why our rural White Paper provided financial support for some of the smaller slaughterhouses in a way that the Conservative Government did not.

Illegal Meat Imports

Nigel Waterson: If she will make a statement on her Department's progress in preventing illegal meat from entering the United Kingdom.

Mark Francois: If she will make a statement on her Department's progress in preventing illegal meat from entering the United Kingdom.

Margaret Beckett: We are making excellent progress with implementing our action plan and a number of initiatives are getting results. As I announced in response to the FMD inquiries, following a review of enforcement structures we are to make Customs and Excise responsible for anti-smuggling checks. This, we expect, will lead to increased deterrence and seizures of illegal meat.

Nigel Waterson: Is the Secretary of State aware that the Meridian Television programme XFocus", to be broadcast next month, will show hard evidence of a systematic trade in smuggling bush meat into this country and selling it? As if this trade were not vile enough in itself, is she aware of further allegations that there is evidence of human flesh being on sale in this country, possibly as part of black magic rituals?

Margaret Beckett: I was not aware of the television programme nor, indeed, of the horrendous suggestion made by the hon. Gentleman. However, I am aware that there has been growing evidence and concern about the trade in bush meat, which is said to be highly profitable. The Government and the enforcement authorities are giving attention to that.

Mark Francois: Are the proposed amnesty bins for illegal meat now available at all the points of entry? If not, why not?

Margaret Beckett: No, they are not, because of considerable doubts and worries about how they would operate. We continue to explore that with the relevant authorities, but when responsibility is transferred, as I anticipate it will be in the near future, it will be for Customs and Excise to make judgments between the different forms of detection and enforcement.

David Drew: My right hon. Friend will be aware of the Select Committee's inquiry into the issue, and the Government have begun to take on board a number of its recommendations. Does she agree that, coming as it does on the back of the drugs trade and people trafficking, this trade is quickly becoming a huge international industry? Would it not be a good idea for the Government to take the initiative and call for an international conference to consider how countries can bear down on the trade? It must start there—we cannot keep the trade out any other way.

Margaret Beckett: My hon. Friend makes an interesting point. He will know of the many expressions of concern in various countries about the trade and that procedures exist to monitor and enforce the rules. Obviously, I will undertake to consider my hon. Friend's suggestion.

Russell Brown: I am delighted that my right hon. Friend has indicated that we are tightening up some of our systems. There is a feeling in the wider country that the Americans, Canadians and Australians have beaten the trade because their controls are very tight, but I believe that considerable smuggling still goes on in those nations. Can my right hon. Friend give us any idea of how much smuggling is still being carried out there?

Margaret Beckett: I am afraid that I do not have that information to hand, but my hon. Friend is certainly right to identify the fact that the relevant authorities in those countries are not by any means complacent about the degree of success that they are experiencing. They share the concerns expressed in this country about our success in keeping on top of that trade.

David Burnside: The Secretary of State will remember that I welcomed the increase in expenditure for Customs and Excuse throughout the whole United Kingdom. However, we do not yet have evidence that the extra expenditure for seaports and airports in Great Britain is being allocated in Northern Ireland, where we also have a land border to protect. Will the right hon. Lady give the House a commitment that Northern Ireland, because it has a land border, will receive those extra resources and that the matter will not be passed on to the Department of Agriculture and Rural Development, but will be borne by Customs and Excise?

Margaret Beckett: I cannot give the hon. Gentleman the precise commitment for which he asks, but I can certainly tell him that discussions are continuing about the way in which the extra resources will be allocated over the longer term. Those discussions are focused on the use that Customs and Excise will make of the resources. I undertake to pass his representations to the relevant authorities.

Paddy Tipping: Does the Secretary of State agree that any measures taken need to be proportionate and based on fact—information and research? She will remember that the action plan on illegal imports called for risk assessments. They were a key part of the plan and were due to be published in September. When will they be published?

Margaret Beckett: My hon. Friend is entirely right, both that action should be evidence based and that we have been awaiting a risk assessment. It has taken longer than we anticipated, as I think that I have already reported to the House, but some preliminary findings are emerging. They will be subject to quality assurance and peer review and we hope that they will be available before Christmas.

David Lidington: Does the right hon. Lady recall that her action plan, published nearly eight months ago, stated that the Government would alter the wording on landing cards so that all incoming passengers knew that they were not supposed to bring meat or meat products into the United Kingdom? Can she say when she expects that pledge to be implemented?

Margaret Beckett: Not at this moment, although I share the hon. Gentleman's concern and I am genuinely glad that he asked that question. Since we held the overall meeting to discuss the preliminary action plan, one source of anxiety to me and to the Department has been that although, in principle, everybody shares the concerns expressed by the hon. Gentleman, it has not been easy to get the airlines, in particular, to agree to take the action that we want them to take, with regard both to landing cards and to the filler videos that we produced to warn people about the precautions they should take and the rules that they should observe. It has been difficult to get people to take those up, but we shall continue to maintain the pressure.

David Lidington: Does the right hon. Lady not realise that it is becoming increasingly difficult for anybody in the farming or food industries to take seriously the pledges of a Government who, nearly 14 months after the end of the foot and mouth outbreak and eight months after their own much-vaunted action plan, are still completely incapable of delivering their pledges—whether on amnesty bins or landing cards? It is not enough for the right hon. Lady to express good will and good intent; it is about time that we saw some action from her Department.

Margaret Beckett: That was an interesting little rant but, unfortunately, it was not relevant to the facts. If the hon. Gentleman and his team, and indeed Conservative Back Benchers, would like a briefing about the action that is being taken and about some of the difficulties that are perceived, for example with the use of amnesty bins, I am happy to offer it. It is important that the House is well informed. The Select Committee indicated that the action plan was proceeding reasonably well, and I would not want to stretch its words further than that. The Government are continuing to work on the issues, but it is important that we do what will be effective and not merely what is currently fashionable.

Animal Movement Restrictions

George Osborne: What recent representations she has received from the livestock industry about the 20-day rule.

Elliot Morley: Industry organisations and individual farmers have made a number of representations about the impact of the 20-day standstill. Ministers and officials regularly meet industry representatives to discuss their views on the current movement controls.

George Osborne: The 20-day standstill is causing enormous concern and hardship in the livestock industry. Mr. Gwyn Williams, a partner in Chelford livestock auction market in my constituency, recently wrote to me and said:
	XAll within the livestock industry will be grateful for your support in removing this ineffective but draconian legislation, which is of no practical use."
	He has my support, but does he have the Minister's?

Elliot Morley: We have made it clear that we are commissioning independent assessments to consider the impact of the 20-day movement control on farmers. The vast majority of farmers can cope with the situation, but we accept that it does cause problems for some. We are sympathetic, but we cannot get away from the fact that the control has very strong veterinary support. It was recommended in Dr. Anderson's independent examination of the lessons to be learned and, indeed, by the Royal Society.
	Hon. Members may also recall the case of the unmarked pig that had symptoms of foot and mouth disease. It has now been traced to two farmers, who have been fined for a range of offences in relation to traceability. That example shows that there is always a very real risk of spreading disease if we do not have movement controls.

Hugo Swire: Given the closeness in date of the three main west country shows, the Minister will appreciate the problem caused by the fact that the closing dates for livestock entry, specifically that for sheep, all fall from the middle to the end of March. Will he therefore explain why the publication of the results of the risk analysis on biosecurity has been delayed from the end of January to the end of April? What advice can he give to the organisers of those shows, which are, of course, so critical to the economy of the south-west?

Elliot Morley: We are regularly in touch with the industry's representatives to address those issues. It is true that the risk assessment is very complex, but it needs to be thorough so that we can get right what we do in the long-term. However, I can assure the hon. Gentleman that, whatever decisions are taken about future movement controls, they will be taken in time and well before the spring movements start.

John Hayes: I know that the Minister will be stung by this week's cross-party foot and mouth inquiry, which accuses him and his colleagues of ineptitude, massive dereliction of duty and unpardonable delays in decision making. Will he make at least one quick decision on the 20-day rule? We know of the experience in Scotland, where it is applied more flexibly and exemptions are obtained more straightforwardly and more fairly. It is damaging to the industry, and it is not effective in restricting movement because farmers are forced to bend it, break it or go out of business. Will he learn that lesson? Will he take advice from the Opposition and the industry and apply the 20-day rule more flexibly for the sake of the livestock industry?

Elliot Morley: We listen very carefully to the industry, although I must inform the hon. Gentleman that the measures in place in England and Scotland are not at all dissimilar. The principal difference is that we ask that veterinary surgeons to examine farmers' biosecurity and separation arrangements. That is a very important step in ensuring that those things are done properly. Of course I have seen the report from the European temporary committee. It is a pity that it was altered by a political combination of Greens and Conservatives, who seemed to want to make political criticisms, rather than genuinely address the disease control lessons that we need to learn for the future.

Environmental Protection Act

Siobhain McDonagh: What plans she has to amend section 34 of the Environmental Protection Act 1990.

Michael Meacher: None. However, we are proposing to amend the Environmental Protection (Duty of Care) Regulations 1991, to grant waste collection authorities powers to serve notice on businesses, requiring them to produce their waste transfer notes. That should ensure better enforcement of the duty of care requirements.

Siobhain McDonagh: Does my right hon. Friend agree that, in the fight against fly tipping, it is very important not only that local authorities have the power to check on small businesses and their waste removal contracts, but that they are aware of their powers?

Michael Meacher: I absolutely agree, and I acknowledge my hon. Friend's concerns and the actions that she is taking to try to improve the situation. As I have said, we believe that the right way to act with regard to the duty of care regulations is not to give local authorities access to the waste trade agreements because such documents are confidential between the waste contractor and the business that produces the waste. However, I entirely share her aim, and I hope that we can lay the regulations before the House very shortly and bring them into force in the early new year.

Norman Baker: Will the Minister consider amending section 34 to help to deal with the problem of abandoned cars? I realise that the Government have taken steps to make it easier for local authorities to deal with this matter, but there was an epidemic of 238,000 abandoned vehicles last year, and the problem barely existed five years ago. Will he take steps to ensure that local authorities and police in particular try to identify those responsible and prosecute them?

Michael Meacher: We have already taken action, as I am sure the hon. Gentleman knows, by reducing the period to 24 hours in the case of cars or vehicles that are assessed as not having value, and, in the case of those that do have value, no more than one week before enforcement action can be taken and the cars removed. As we know from Operation Cubitt in Newham and Kent, that has produced a vast reduction in the number of abandoned cars. We have also taken steps to ensure continuing registration of cars so that responsibility is placed firmly on the last owner who registers. If there is a change of ownership, and that is not registered, the last owner who did register remains responsible. We believe that those two measures will tackle what I agree is a very serious scourge of our streets.

Joan Ruddock: I thank my right hon. Friend for the raft of measures that are in place, and that are being put in place. When he lays the regulations, however, will he further consider that local authorities are now frequently in a position, because of CCTV and co-operation from residents, to know when there are carriers on the road that are persistently fly tipping, although they do not have powers to deal with them? Will he consider extending to local authorities the power of street-stopping those vehicles and the power to impose fixed penalties on those that are carrying waste illegally?

Michael Meacher: I am certainly keen to find ways of tackling fly tipping, which is a very serious offence and a major problem. A fly tipping forum was set up, with our support, by the Environment Agency, and it is looking at ways in which perpetrators can be better caught. It has recently spent #250,000 on new equipment to do that, including the kind of proposals that my hon. Friend has suggested. Stopping vehicles to check whether what they are carrying is going to be tipped illegally is too difficult, however, because that cannot be proven. However, I am prepared to consider any further measures to deal with this menace.

Jonathan Sayeed: The Minister's answer to the hon. Member for Mitcham and Morden (Siobhain McDonagh) is regrettable, as fly tipping is an environmental scourge that blights both urban and rural Britain. It will get worse as landfill tax increases and the power to deal with the problem is divorced from the responsibility to deal with it. Why does he not have plans to invest in a single body—local authorities or the Environment Agency—the authority and the accountability to make the fly-tipping polluter pay for the harm that is caused to the environment, society and economy?

Michael Meacher: The hon. Gentleman is strong on rhetoric, and I entirely share his purpose, but he was not listening to my answer. I indicated that amending section 34 of the Environmental Protection Act is not the appropriate way to proceed, as that would give local authorities access to the waste trade agreements, which, for the reason that I have given, is not appropriate. We are making the appropriate arrangements, however, which are to amend the Environmental Protection (Duty of Care) Regulations 1991. If he listened to me, he would understand that I share his purpose. We are dealing with the matter in the right way, and not in the wrong way that he suggests.

Common Agricultural Policy

Ian Davidson: What progress she has made in reforming the Common Agricultural Policy of the EU during the last month.

Margaret Beckett: A limit to CAP spending for the period 2007–13 has been agreed on a basis that the Commission sees as mandating it to continue with its main proposals for reform.

Ian Davidson: Am I right in thinking that that was essentially a way of saying that progress this month, as in virtually every other month, has been negligible, and that the progress that the Government are making in their efforts, rightly, to reform the CAP continues to be negligible? Is it not about time that we accepted that the CAP is simply unreformable, that it is one of those areas in which modernisation is clearly not working, and that we must consider whether withdrawal from the CAP, or something similar, is the only possible alternative for us in such circumstances?

Margaret Beckett: I thought that I was going to agree with my hon. Friend, but I am afraid that I cannot conceivably join him where he finished up. It is not fair to say that progress has been negligible. It has made people look afresh at the details of the proposals that the Commission has introduced and that it will flesh out. That is a good thing.
	Inevitably in these circumstances, many meetings and discussions have taken place further to identify where different member states stand, where there is common ground and where there is scope for agreement and so on. However, I certainly cannot agree with my hon. Friend that there is sense or merit in our withdrawing from the CAP, not least because we would be totally unable to do that unless we withdrew from the European Union.

Henry Bellingham: When the Secretary of State goes through the discussions on the reform process, will she talk to her fellow socialist Members of the European Parliament? For example, will she ask about the recent European Parliament report on foot and mouth? Will she ask about the findings of incompetence and about a Government who were more concerned about the political implications of the crisis than about trying to solve it? Is it any wonder that she did not order a full public inquiry into the foot and mouth crisis? What is her comment on the European Parliament report?

Margaret Beckett: I do not need to talk to my socialist colleagues in the European Parliament about this matter. Long ago, they prepared what I understand to be a fairly sensible core report that did what the Committee was set up to do—consider what lessons there were for Europe as a whole as opposed to the lessons specifically for the United Kingdom. The people who were in a majority to force through the changes to which the hon. Gentleman referred were members of the Conservative party and the Green party. They worked hand in hand as they sought to turn the report into a rant against the British Government and not into something serious that Europe can use.

Mark Lazarowicz: Does my right hon. Friend agree that one of the scandalous features of the CAP is the way that it—as well as ripping off British consumers—damages the livelihoods of producers in developing countries? Does she not agree that it really is time to stop the dumping of surplus European agricultural produce at subsidised prices in developing countries? Will she give a commitment that she will pursue that objective at the forthcoming Agriculture Council meeting and at the Heads of Government meetings over the next few weeks?

Margaret Beckett: I can certainly wholeheartedly give that commitment. I assure my hon. Friend that I have taken exactly that stance over the past few months at the Agriculture Council meetings and at the world conference in Johannesburg. I fully expect to continue taking it. He is entirely right. There is growing recognition of the problems that are exacerbated by the structures of the CAP with regard to the developing world. I entirely share his view that it is hugely important that we lay the foundation for ameliorating those problems.

Andrew George: Does the Secretary of State agree that, to secure the much-desired rapid reform of the common agricultural policy, she may need to engage in further stand-up rows with her European colleagues, particularly in the light of the obvious cynical manipulation by France of legal proceedings so that it can avoid paying the hefty fine imposed on it for its entirely unacceptable and illegal ban on the importation of British beef?

Margaret Beckett: I am always willing, should it prove necessary, to have stand-up rows if that is the only way to get one's own way. However, I have consistently sought throughout my political career and in my role as a Minister to do what is effective. Having a stand-up row is sometimes not the most effective way to get one's way on behalf of one's country. However, I assure the hon. Gentleman that, if getting up and shouting at someone is required, I am quite happy to do that.

George Stevenson: Although I recognise what my right hon. Friend says about progress being made on reform of the CAP, does she agree that the basic and unacceptable principles of the CAP remain in place? Despite the cap on spending over the next few years that she mentioned, is it not the case that, if the principles of the CAP remain in place, the budgetary consequences of lack of reform will be unacceptable in the light of enlargement?

Margaret Beckett: I agree with my hon. Friend. It has long been the case that people across Europe have appreciated the many problems associated with the CAP. Many of those problems persist. I also agree that the implications of applying the CAP to an enlarged Community are serious and substantial. It is a matter not only of the financial implications—although those are considerable, as he said—but of applying what is a bureaucratic, time-consuming, and frequently counterproductive structure to a fresh raft of member states. For those reasons, it is important to pursue reform, as we shall continue to do.

Fisheries

Alistair Carmichael: If she will make a statement on the present difficulties facing the fishing industry.

Elliot Morley: While recognising the impact on the industry, firm action is needed to halt the decline in fish stocks. The Government are working to identify possible alternatives to an extensive moratorium on fishing activities while respecting the need to act in response to the scientific advice.

Alistair Carmichael: Does the Minister consider it acceptable that the EU Commission can propose the closure of the white fish fishery without paying regard to the conservation measures introduced—the use of square-mesh panels and larger mesh sizes, and the decommissioning of 20 white fish boats in Scotland? If that is not acceptable, what is he going to do about it?

Elliot Morley: We are to debate these issues in detail this afternoon. The hon. Gentleman would be wrong to think that we would agree to any measure without taking into account what has been done by the Scottish and English fleets. We have not been able to do that so far, but there is a great deal of negotiation to take place, and analysis and interpretation of the science needs to be done. I know that the hon. Gentleman and representatives of the industry recently met my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Scotland. I also know that the Scottish Executive have debated the issue extensively, and we are working in close partnership with them. We have done much to reduce effort, and I assure the hon. Gentleman that it will be taken into account in the calculations.

Lawrie Quinn: Does my hon. Friend agree with Arnold Locker, a Whitby fisherman and chairman of the National Federation of Fishermen's Organisations, when he says that if enforcement measures that apply to Yorkshire fishermen were applied across Europe to ensure that policies were delivered, we might not be in the same position?

Elliot Morley: I agree with Mr. Locker that it is important that effective enforcement measures apply to all member states consistently across Europe. We will argue for the inclusion of that objective in a package of measures on cod recovery and common fisheries policy reform. There have been cases of rule breaking that are not unique to any one country or sector of the industry. Anyone who has been involved in that undermines scientific analysis and attempts at genuine conservation.

Mark Simmonds: Will the Minister investigate the workings of the eastern sea fisheries committee over the past five years? There have been enormous problems with it and serious allegations of major impropriety. The fishermen whom the committee is supposed to represent and monitor have completely lost of confidence in it, especially those in my constituency who work out of Boston.

Elliot Morley: The hon. Gentleman will know that although I meet the Association of Sea Fisheries Committees and believe that the committees are important and valuable organisations, responsibility for the committees rests with local authorities. They are local committees, run by local authorities and representing local fishermen. I am aware of some of the problems that he has experienced with the committee, and we have corresponded on that. I listen carefully to points raised, especially in relation to a balance of representation, but any claim of impropriety is a matter for local authorities to investigate.

George Foulkes: I congratulate my hon. Friend on being the most experienced and effective fisheries Minister in the whole of the United Kingdom—[Laughter.] The Liberals will understand what I mean.
	Does my hon. Friend agree that it takes a miracle to replace the fish that have been scourged from the sea in cases of overfishing? Surely those of us who represent fishing constituencies have a responsibility not only to argue the case to Ministers, but to warn our constituents of the dangers of overfishing. We should not raise false hopes.

Elliot Morley: My right hon. Friend is absolutely right. We must have effective enforcement, which of course starts at home. However, we must also look at the impact on our seas of all fishing fleets. We need to take into account other aspects, such as industrial fishing and whether or not they are sustainable and have a long-term impact on fish stocks. I know that many Members share an interest in that issue.

Alex Salmond: I welcome the fact that the Minister has just challenged the report by the International Council for the Exploration of the Sea on industrial fishing. I have that, that challenge extends to other aspects of the report. However, will he communicate to the Prime Minister the fact that it is not just the troops who are demoralised? The fishing communities in Scotland, Northern Ireland and the north of England are demoralised by the Prime Minister's apparent indifference to a crisis that threatens thousands of jobs. How does the fisheries Minister plan to engage the Government at the highest level to resist the total lunacy of the European Commission?

Elliot Morley: First, the Government are engaged at the highest level to represent the needs of our fishing communities. We well understand the regional importance of the fishing industry and the implications and consequences of such changes. We cannot, however, deny the science. We must take it into account, but we must also challenge it. I make it clear to the House that the United Kingdom Government will not sign up to any issue until we have a clear understanding of any proposals and their justification. The restriction of the nephrops fishery, for example, was originally proposed because of the cod by-catch. The hon. Gentleman will be aware that we have done a great deal of scientific work on the cod by-catch in the North sea fishery. It is minimal, and he will note that calls for restriction have now been withdrawn by the Commission.

Foundry Industry

Adrian Bailey: How the capacity thresholds for the pollution prevention control regulations in the foundry industry are assessed; and if she will make a statement.

Michael Meacher: The regulations prescribe various capacity thresholds for different activities, including for the foundry industry, and derive from the EC directive on integrated pollution prevention and control. In assessing permit applications, regulators will determine the capacity of an installation on a case-by-case basis. The starting point is the operator's description of the installation.

Adrian Bailey: I thank my right hon. Friend for his reply. There are concerns, particularly among small foundries, that they are being assessed on the basis of a theoretical 24-hour production capacity when in fact they have neither the moulding nor the cleaning capacity to operate for more than eight hours. As a result, the extra regulations would incur considerably increased costs, which could put some of them out of business. Will my right hon. Friend undertake to work with the small foundries to ensure that they are not inappropriately regulated?

Michael Meacher: I am happy to do so and consider the matter further. The precise definition of capacity thresholds is set out in the regulations. Operators should be clear whether they are subject to the full integrated pollution prevention and control regulations or, if they run the smaller operations about which my hon. Friend is concerned, only to air pollution controls. I repeat that the starting point for assessing an installation's capacity on a case-by-case basis is the operator's own description, but if there are problems that can be resolved under the regulations that are binding on all member states, I am happy to look at the details.

Sheep Dips

Elfyn Llwyd: When she last discussed the efficacy of continued use of organophosphate sheep dips with representatives of (a) the medical profession and (b) the pharmaceutical industry.

Alun Michael: The Veterinary Products Committee has considered the question of continued authorisation of organophosphate sheep dips on a number of occasions. Its most recent advice on that issue, provided in October, was that no new regulatory action was necessary at that time.

Elfyn Llwyd: I thank the Minister for his reply, which is not encouraging. Over the past five years, compelling evidence has built up of the link between organophosphate toxins and the debilitating disease that they cause. For 10 years, there has been an all-party group on the issue. Is it not the case that the Government refuse to do anything until they are dragged kicking and screaming to the High Court, as happened with the miners' compensation issue?

Alun Michael: The hon. Gentleman mixes two inappropriate comments. Following Government intervention, all OP sheep dips are now supplied in containers with enclosed transfer systems. A number of measures have been taken to ensure safety, and the advice of the specialists is as I stated in the reply to the hon. Gentleman's first question.

Paul Tyler: Does the Minister accept that the Government have a special responsibility to the victims of OP poisoning, because for many years those who were using OPs had to use them on Government instructions? Their use was not voluntary. The sheep dip was not simply an approved product; it was compulsory. Does the Minister therefore accept that there is a special responsibility to secure justice for those victims?

Alun Michael: The Government have a responsibility to act on the best scientific advice. The original question was about the continuation of use, and it remains the view that there is currently no scientific justification for banning OP sheep dips. On the basis of the advice, precautionary measures to ensure people's safety have been taken by the Government.

Livestock Industry

Bill Wiggin: What assessment she has made of the effectiveness of the biosecurity regulations governing the livestock industry.

Elliot Morley: Extra biosecurity rules introduced in the aftermath of the foot and mouth disease outbreak are kept under review. Although standards of biosecurity have improved in some respects, there is no room for complacency.

Bill Wiggin: I welcome the action plan for the briefing session mentioned earlier. It is true that the 20-day rule has been adhered to extremely conscientiously by farmers, and I find it very positive that Customs and Excise will try to prevent smuggling, but will the Minister do more to prevent double standards being inflicted on farmers? We know that the Government are not bringing in amnesty bins and landing cards, and it strikes me as most unfair that when farmers are doing their very best on biosecurity the Government are not doing what they should be doing to support them.

Elliot Morley: That is not the case. We accept that if we are trying to minimise the risk of disease, we must tackle various aspects of the problem. That must include borders and points of entry. We have introduced measures, as the hon. Gentleman knows, and we want to do more. We must identify exactly where the risks are, and a risk assessment is currently under development. The Government accept our responsibilities—for example, for border control—but the livestock industry must recognise that it, too, has responsibilities to reduce the risk of disease, and that involves movement restrictions. We will discuss in due course whether the 20-day restriction is appropriate, but there must be restrictions and they must be permanent.

Roger Williams: The Minister will be aware of the criticism of the number of officials who are employed in livestock markets and collection centres to oversee biosecurity measures. Would not some of those people be better employed at airports and seaports to ensure that exotic animal diseases do not enter this country?

Elliot Morley: Again, it is a question of risk and where resources are best applied. If we do not think carefully about where the risks are, we could deploy a great deal of money, resources and people power, and not reduce risk. By their nature, livestock markets, where animals intermingle, are an area of extremely high risk, so biosecurity must apply. Markets recognise that and we acknowledge the work that they have done to reduce risk.

Biofuels

David Cameron: What representations she has received about tax treatment of biodiesel and other biofuels; and if she will make a statement.

Michael Meacher: The Government have received representations from industry, farmers and members of the public, both at meetings and in correspondence, requesting duty cuts for liquid biofuels. As with all tax matters, decisions on tax incentives rest with the Chancellor of the Exchequer.

David Cameron: I wish the right hon. Gentleman well in his conversations with the Chancellor of the Exchequer. Is it not a fact that with farm incomes low and with the widespread concern about the waste of set-aside, biofuels—biodiesel—represent an excellent opportunity for farmers and for the environment? Is not the tax treatment of such fuels in other European countries, slightly more generous than in our country? Would the Minister please take that up with the Chancellor, preferably before next week?

Michael Meacher: I am keen to support agricultural diversification. Liquid biofuels have tremendous potential. The Government have set up the Government-industry forum on non-food uses of crops to investigate that potential. The Government have already taken action to promote the production of biofuels. As a result of the green fuels challenge, a new duty rate for biodiesel was set at 20p per litre below the rate for ultra-low sulphur diesel. I am well aware of the argument that that rate needs to be lower. As I said, I hear the argument and the matter is one for the Chancellor. On the comparison with Europe, the 20p reduction is almost the average for the European Union; it is slightly below that level. I recognise that if the industry is to be viable and not only develop used vegetable oil, which is already coming forward, the argument must be very carefully looked at.

Peter Pike: Will my right hon. Friend give an assurance that he will continue to consider this matter in a very positive way? It must be recognised that, as we need to make changes in agricultural production to meet those in the common agricultural policy, the development of biofuels is an environmentally positive way of proceeding that deals with several situations at the same time. We should encourage agriculture and the National Farmers Union to work in that direction.

Michael Meacher: I entirely agree with my hon. Friend—this is a win-win situation in many respects. We are discussing a form of agricultural diversification that will certainly create more agricultural jobs and will produce an alternative transport fuel that is much more environmentally sensitive. The issue—this has to be the issue—is that it has to be cost-effective. If further duty cuts are made, they will of course involve a reduction in revenue for the Exchequer. The opportunity costs of making those reductions as opposed to others are the essential issue that the Government have to bear in mind.

David Heath: Does the right hon. Gentleman understand the frustration that is currently felt in the industry about the lack of leadership from the Government on this matter? People cannot plant crops unless they are sure that there is a processing plant to take the crops, and they cannot develop processing plants unless they know that there is a market for the fuel. Can he not see that much greater leadership needs to be shown, not only by his Department but by the Treasury?

Michael Meacher: It is not only a question of showing political leadership, as this is not a matter of political will. I was trying to tell the House that a cost is involved and that the process has to be cost-effective. Those are the calculations that the Treasury rightly has to make in considering the best way of using taxpayers' money, whether to promote an alternative form of agriculture, a new transport fuel or a reduction in greenhouse gases. I think that it can make a contribution in all those respects, but the hon. Gentleman needs to contain his frustration. The arguments are fully understood by the Government and I suggest that he wait to see what the Chancellor says in his pre-Budget report.

Egg Industry

Nicholas Winterton: What steps she has taken to ensure the future viability of the UK egg-laying industry.

Elliot Morley: DEFRA is committed to promoting sustainable, diverse, modern and adaptable farming. The egg-laying industry is an important part of that objective.

Nicholas Winterton: While I am grateful to the Minister for that apparently helpful reply, does he recognise that a prohibition on enriched cages in England after 2012 would result in egg imports from other parts of the United Kingdom and other European countries where the use of such cages has already been authorised? If the cages are prohibited after 2012, it will do absolutely nothing for animal welfare. Will he give the industry an assurance that enriched cages will be authorised?

Elliot Morley: The Government have held a full and detailed consultation, as the hon. Gentleman knows, about whether it would be appropriate to permit enriched cages post-2012. We have implemented the directive in full and in an unchanged form, but it is discretionary whether member states allow the cages to be used after that date. I believe that it is important that we consider the issue as early as possible to allow the industry time to consider its future investment options.
	I understand the hon. Gentleman's point about the potential for competition from other countries that are not applying such systems. Some European countries have already said that they intend to prohibit such systems. However, we take the point seriously, and my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State was successful in obtaining a statement at Doha that world trade would take account of non-trade matters, precisely because of issues such as those that affect the egg industry. I shall not ignore the hon. Gentleman's point because we must take it into account.

Electronic Equipment

Alan Whitehead: For what elements of the implementation of the waste electrical and electronic equipment directive the Department is responsible.

Michael Meacher: The Department of Trade and Industry is leading on negotiations of the WEEE directive, which is due to be approved by the Environment Council in December. Both the DTI and DEFRA are holding several focus group meetings with stakeholders on WEEE implementation. DEFRA takes the lead in implementing article 6 on permitting treatment facilities.

Alan Whitehead: I thank my right hon. Friend for that reply. Will he ensure that the front-end responsibilities of producers of electrical and electronic goods are properly related to those of waste disposal authorities when the directive is implemented in the United Kingdom?

Michael Meacher: Certainly. DEFRA remains in correspondence with the DTI about which Department should take the lead in the WEEE directive's implementation. We shall consider the strategy unit report when it is published shortly. It is important to ensure co-operation between both Departments because DEFRA leads on local authorities and dismantlers when implementing article 6, and the DTI plays a lead role in respect of retailers and manufacturers. Both should have clear responsibilities with regard to waste disposal authorities.

Bovine TB

Huw Edwards: If she will make a statement on levels of cases of bovine TB.

Elliot Morley: The number of new TB herd incidents recorded for Great Britain between 1 January and 30 September 2002 stands at just under 2,300, of which 417 are in Wales. That includes confirmed, unconfirmed and unclassified incidents.

Huw Edwards: In Monmouthshire, there have been 90 suspected cases, of which a third have already been confirmed. That causes considerable frustration to livestock farmers, who are affected by the increased costs of movement restrictions. Will my hon. Friend assure us that every effort is being made to resolve the crisis? When will the Krebs trials be completed and a vaccine developed?

Elliot Morley: I understand my hon. Friend's anxiety about bovine TB; we take it seriously. He knows that we recently allocated an additional #3 million to catch up with the backlog of testing that resulted from the foot-and-mouth outbreak. Testing was, of course, impossible then. The work has distorted the outbreak figures because we are testing in the most high risk areas first, and the figures that we get will not be representative of the spread and increase in bovine TB. Nevertheless, there is no room for complacency.
	My hon. Friend knows that I recently announced a package of measures about changes in movement control. They are designed to help farmers who are under restriction because of TB.

Roy Beggs: Is there any correlation between the increase in bovine TB and that in human TB?
	There is a perception that badgers contribute to the spread of bovine TB. What analysis has been undertaken to determine whether badgers play a part in spreading the terrible disease?

Elliot Morley: The hon. Gentleman is right about the latter point. There has been a long-running debate about the link between badgers and bovine TB. It has gone on for approximately 20 years. The Krebs experiment is a five-year programme designed to consider the link and ascertain its importance once and for all. It is an important experiment that we must see through to completion.
	There are two strains of TB—bovine and human. Human TB is therefore a different strain. The increase in it is due to the fact that people travel more widely. It is caused by global travel, not an increase in the cattle herd.

Non-food Crops

Alistair Burt: What proposals she intends to bring forward to support the promotion of non-food crops in the UK.

Michael Meacher: DEFRA and the Department of Trade and Industry are consulting stakeholders on establishing a new centre to bring together industry, academia and the research community to drive forward the commercial development of non-food uses of crops. DEFRA and the DTI are also considering a joint initiative to provide grant support to promote technology transfer through demonstration projects. The Government have allocated #70 million to develop markets for biomass in heat, combined heat and power, and power generation.

Alistair Burt: Is the Minister aware of the excellent campaign being run by Farmers Weekly to draw attention to the non-food use of crops? Does he not feel some sympathy for its sense of a lack of urgency on the part of the Government? With such terrible prices being paid in the arable sector, the non-food use of crops—which has been on the cards for some time—could have been given rather more attention by the Government than it has been up to now.

Michael Meacher: I am very keen to make progress on this, as I said in answer to an earlier question. This is an important area for agricultural diversification. We set up the forum on the non-food use of crops in March last year to give us strategic advice, and it has now done so. We intend to respond to the forum's recommendations in early 2003. The centre of excellence that we propose to set up, which brings together the existing facilities in one central core, is a very good way forward. I am very keen that we should make real progress in this area.

Business of the House

Eric Forth: May I please ask the Leader of the House to give us the business for next week?

Robin Cook: The business for next week is as follows:
	Monday 25 November—There will be a debate on the UN Security Council Resolution 1441.
	Tuesday 26 November—Second Reading of the Regional Assemblies (Preparations) Bill.
	Wednesday 27 November—Second Reading of the Health (Wales) Bill.
	Thursday 28 November—Second Reading of the Community Care (Delayed Discharges etc.) Bill.
	Friday 29 November—The House will not be sitting.
	The House will also wish to be reminded that my right hon. Friend the Chancellor of the Exchequer will deliver his pre-Budget report on Wednesday 27 November.
	The provisional business for the following week will be:
	Monday 2 December—Until 7 o'clock there will be an Opposition half day. There will be a debate in the name of the Democratic Unionist Party on a subject to be announced. [Hon. Members: XGuess!"] I would not dream of taking up such an invitation.
	That will be followed by a debate on the convention on the future of Europe.
	Tuesday 3 December—Second Reading of the Communications Bill.
	Wednesday 4 December—Second Reading of the Criminal Justice Bill.
	Thursday 5 December—Estimates [1st allotted Day].
	There will be a debate on the Government's drugs policy. Details will be given in the Official Report.
	At 7 pm the House will be asked to agree all outstanding estimates.
	Friday 6 December—The House will not be sitting.
	I should also like to inform the House that the business in Westminster Hall for Thursday 5 December will be a debate on the report from the International Development Committee on global climate change and sustainable development.

Eric Forth: I thank the Leader of the House for giving us the business. We are all aware that the long-awaited and much-anticipated Wicks report reached the public domain this morning. At this stage, may I put down a marker and ask the right hon. Gentleman whether he will guarantee that, at an appropriate time and after deliberations in the House, we will have an opportunity fully to debate the report, which has such a huge impact on the House and the way in which it works, and on its Members?
	The Leader of the House may or may not be aware—I do not know how assiduously even he follows the proceedings of the European Parliament—that yesterday the European Parliament produced a report on foot and mouth disease, which, in distinction to the rather dismal effort made in this country, was produced on the basis of public hearings. Will the right hon. Gentleman tell us whether he is prepared to give time—probably early in the new year—for a debate on foot and mouth that will allow us to consider not only the findings of the final version of the European Parliament report but all the other investigations into that important subject, so that we can come to a proper conclusion?
	Following the pre-Budget report next Wednesday, I hope that we shall have an opportunity soon thereafter for a full debate on the economy because it would appear from all reports that we are receiving that the gloss has gone off the Chancellor in particular. Following what he tells us in his pre-Budget report, we shall want to consider the state of the economy and of the Government's finances very carefully. Perhaps we shall see the Chancellor in an altogether new light. That would be an uplifting experience, certainly for those on the Conservative Benches, and it should happen in any case.
	I want to ask the Leader of the House about the crisis in higher education. Is there such a crisis? The Minister for Lifelong Learning and Higher Education has told us that there is, which worries me, as I am sure it does you, Mr. Speaker, because we have all been brought up to believe in the doctrine of Government collective responsibility—a very important part of our constitutional and parliamentary arrangements. This Government, however, do not seem to have any collective responsibility, because the Secretary of State for Education and Skills and the Minister for Lifelong Learning and Higher Education are busy flying kites on top-up tuition fees in higher education, while no less a figure than the Secretary of State for International Development has said that they are a bad idea.
	Here we have two Cabinet members plus other Ministers all saying completely different things about an important policy area. Will the Leader of the House please arrange a debate on Government collective responsibility so that we can find out once and for all whether the Government have any collective view about anything at all or whether there is a permanent free-for-all in the Cabinet on important areas of responsibility?

George Foulkes: Unite or die!

Mr. Speaker: Order.

Eric Forth: I ask also for an urgent debate entitled XHonesty and Integrity in Government". The key figure in that debate, perhaps to everybody's surprise, would be Admiral Sir Michael Boyce—a man whose honesty and integrity are unimpeachable, a man for whom all of us on the Conservative Benches have the highest possible regard and a man whose word can be accepted without question on our Benches.
	It appears, however, that things are rather different on the Government side. Sadly, when the admiral was asked yesterday about the impact on the effectiveness of the armed forces of their preparations for and involvement in the firefighters' strike, he said, XI am extremely concerned". He is reported as going on to say that
	Xclearly we cannot perform at the fullest end of our operational capability".
	That is the Chief of the Defence Staff stating his assessment of the impact of our domestic situation on our armed forces. In the light of that, the Secretary of State for Defence is reported as saying:
	XI didn't actually hear him say 'extreme concern'."
	Rather than have a debate, perhaps we should offer the Secretary of State an analysis of his hearing capability, because for the two to be at such odds is a serious matter.
	It gets worse, because at column 639 of yesterday's Hansard, during PMPs—[Interruption.] Yes, Prime Minister's porkies. The Prime Minister was told that
	Xthe Chief of the Defence Staff expressed his considerable concerns about what he described in this context as the present military effectiveness of the British armed forces in this respect."
	The Prime Minister replied:
	XThe Chief of the Defence Staff did not say that."
	The Prime Minister is now challenging the Chief of the Defence Staff on what he said. The Prime Minister went on to say that
	Xhe said that we would have the full operational capability for any requirement that might be made of us."—[Official Report, 20 November 2002; Vol. 394, c. 639.]
	But the Chief of the Defence Staff had just said that we did not have the full operational capability.
	We must have a debate on this matter, Mr. Speaker. It cannot be left hanging in the air, because it goes to the heart not only of integrity and honesty in government, of which there seems to be precious little these days, but of the relationship between this country's top military man and members of the Cabinet. We must have a debate and we must sort this out once and for all.

Robin Cook: Before I respond to the right hon. Gentleman's questions, may I allude to a question he asked me last week about the number of written statements and the time when they were released? I am pleased to say that today there will again be 10 written statements, nine of which were laid before the business statement. The one exception is the statement on victims and witnesses, which the Home Office understandably wants to release at the same time as the publication of the Criminal Justice Bill at 2.30 this afternoon. I hope that the House will take some comfort from the fact that we are doing all we can to ensure that written statements are provided timeously, and that the House can benefit from a more transparent and open way of making announcements.
	I have not yet had a chance to read all of the Wicks report, but I welcome one of its early conclusions:
	XWe believe that standards in the House of Commons are generally high. The overwhelming majority of Members seek to, and in practice do, uphold high standards of propriety."
	I trust that I carry the House with me when I express the hope that tomorrow the press will give adequate coverage to that central conclusion of the Wicks committee.
	The right hon. Gentleman is right—the House must have an opportunity to examine the report—but I would have thought that the appropriate time was when we had had an opportunity to reflect and to digest it. I would particularly like to know the views of the Standards and Privileges Committee before the House discusses it.
	I think it would be slightly eccentric to debate a European Parliament report on foot and mouth when we already have a number of reports of our own, in Britain, about what happened. I am conscious of the deep interest in the matter, and we are keeping it in mind for a future debate; but, as the right hon. Gentleman pointed out, from now until the end of the year we shall have a very busy schedule, especially in dealing with Second Readings of the many excellent Bills in the Queen's Speech.
	The right hon. Gentleman mentioned the state of the economy. I was a little perplexed to be pressed for a debate on that, given that, for the first time in my memory, the Opposition chose not to divide on the economy at the end of our debates on the Queen's Speech. That may of course reflect their recognition that they are not on the strongest ground when it comes to a record on the economy that has given us the lowest inflation and interest rates for a generation—since the time of the Beatles, as my right hon. Friend the Member for Carrick, Cumnock and Doon Valley (Mr. Foulkes) said in his speech—and a lower unemployment rate than any other major economy in Europe. I assure the right hon. Gentleman that the gloss is still fully on the Chancellor, and that he looks forward with confidence to coming here on Wednesday and robustly defending the Government's economic record.
	Let me also say this to my—to the right hon. Gentleman. I nearly called him my right hon. Friend, and would not necessarily resile from that but for its parliamentary connotations. I think it took a bit of brass neck for him to lecture the Government on the principle of collective responsibility. Only in the past week have we seen him restored to his place in the Chamber so that we can see his face again. Let me gently suggest that this may be an instance in which those in glass houses might hesitate before throwing stones.
	As the House knows, preparation is currently being made for a review of higher education, which will be published in the new year. I am sure that when it is published the House will want to debate it, and explore the options that it presents.
	There will of course be a debate on Iraq next week, when the House, if it wishes, will be able to discuss the military preparedness of the armed forces for any conflict that may arise. Of course everyone, whether in the military or not, would like the fire strike threatened for tomorrow not to take place. That is why my right hon. Friend the Deputy Prime Minister has been working so hard to find a basis on which talks and negotiations can continue. We strongly urge the parties to the dispute to remain at the negotiating table rather than take strike action, but I am confident that if they take such action the armed forces and other personnel will do all that they can to try to provide the best possible alternative cover, and will rise to the task with no complaints.

Paul Tyler: Did the Leader of the House notice that the right hon. Member for Bromley and Chislehurst (Mr. Forth) endorsed the question to the Prime Minister from my right hon. Friend the Member for Ross, Skye and Inverness, West (Mr. Kennedy) yesterday rather than supporting his own leader? Does that not show where the real opposition is?
	On the Wicks committee, I wonder whether the Leader of the House would like to comment on the fact that the report on the standards of conduct of the House of Commons—a report that could not be more relevant to Members of Parliament—was presented to the media at 11 am this morning, but was not available to Members until 11.20 because of Xa technical hitch". Moreover, the written statement from the Prime Minister was not available in the Library until 11.30. Surely on this occasion at least, Members of the House should be given priority. Will the Leader of the House accept that the intention behind the Modernisation Committee's proposal that we should do away with the farcical charade of question planters was to give the whole House such information at the earliest possible opportunity? Does he accept that simply leaving it to the Standards and Privileges Committee to come back to the House with a review of the Wicks committee report will not be sufficient? After all, that Committee is itself under some attack from the recommendations of the Wicks committee.
	Has the Leader of the House had time to consider Mr. Speaker's statement of yesterday, in response to a point of order from my hon. Friend the Member for Northavon (Mr. Webb) about the obligation of Ministers and their Departments to give full, honest and accurate answers to parliamentary questions? Has the Leader of the House considered the particular point made by Mr. Speaker that he hoped that steps would be taken
	Xto ensure that that does not happen again."—[Official Report, 20 November 2002; Vol. 394, c. 645.]?
	Will the Leader of the House examine, across the whole of Government, examples that my colleagues and I have discovered of the way in which the parliamentary question has been debased by some Departments?
	Finally, I ask the Leader of the House whether there could be pre-legislative scrutiny of the civil service legislation that we still hope to see in this Session—even if only in draft form—given that the Wicks committee's work on the politicisation of civil servants is intensely relevant to the reputation of this Government and this Parliament.

Robin Cook: The decision on the release of the Wicks committee report was in the first instance a matter for that committee—it was in its hands to decide when it chose to publish it. I regret that the report was not simultaneously available in the Vote Office, and we did take steps to make sure that it was made available as quickly as possible. I regret the delay, and I must be frank with the House and say that, at the time of coming to the Chamber, I was unable to get to the bottom of the reason for that delay. I shall pursue the matter when I leave the Chamber, but the report is now available in the Vote Office, and is available to hon. Members.
	I should say that I did not imply that a report from the Standards and Privileges Committee would itself be sufficient, but I do think it desirable. I would hope that, before we have what will necessarily be a wide-ranging discussion in the House, involving Members who are not necessarily members of that Committee, the Committee and its Chairman should advise us on how we should proceed, and on how we should assess the recommendations.
	I vigorously rebut the idea that the parliamentary answer has been in any way debased. Indeed, only in the past month or two, I made a submission to the Procedure Committee, robustly defending the parliamentary answers provided by Government. There are of course occasions when they are not adequate, and for that reason an apology was given this week to Mr. Speaker, and to the hon. Gentleman's colleague, the hon. Member for Northavon (Mr. Webb). We shall seek to do all that we can to prevent any further administrative mix-up that results in the wrong information being provided to a Member. However, I ask the House to bear in mind that the volume of parliamentary answers has almost doubled in the course of this Parliament since the last election. We are seeking to cope with the very welcome interest of Members in the work of government and the excellent work that we are doing, but sometimes that is challenging.
	I note what the hon. Gentleman says about bringing forward civil service legislation in draft form. I understand why he proposes that—there would be considerable interest in such legislation. Whether we will have such legislation in this Session I am currently not in a position to say, but I shall bear in mind the view that, should such legislation be brought forward, it might be helpful, if circumstances allow, for it to be seen in draft.

Ann McKechin: My right hon. Friend will be aware of the sale of the Herald Newspaper Group by the Scottish Media Group, and of the deep concern of many that one of the bidders is the Barclay brothers, owners of The Scotsman. May I ask my right hon. Friend to provide time in the House to discuss the future of newspaper media in Scotland, and in particular to discuss the developing monopoly situation and how competition policy can seek to broaden the range of the available newspaper media in Scotland?

Robin Cook: My hon. Friend raises a matter of considerable interest in Scotland. I am sure that it will be a considerable talking point at next week's dinner organised by The Herald, at which many hon. Members will be present.

Eric Forth: Oh!

Robin Cook: I do not think that our independence of judgment on this question will be suborned, but we will wish to seek views, and it is possible that we will even express views in the course of that dinner. My hon. Friend is right that one of the objectives that we should try to achieve in the media is to ensure that there is competition and an alternative point of view. Anyone who knows of the long-standing rivalry between Edinburgh and Glasgow will be aware of the importance of those two cities having distinct daily newspapers to cover their populations. My hon. Friend has alluded to the fact that there exist well known and well worn systems by which we can ensure that any merger in the media industry is subject to adequate competition checks.

Andrew Mitchell: I agree with the Leader of the House about the Wicks report, and I understand that neither he nor anyone else has had a chance to reflect fully on its recommendations. However, I draw the right hon. Gentleman's attention to paragraph 15 of the report, which states:
	XWe have recommended . . . that no party should have an overall majority on the Committee"
	on Standards and Privileges. To many hon. Members, that seems a good idea. May I urge the Leader of the House to consider it most carefully?

Robin Cook: I have the highest regard for all those who serve on the Standards and Privileges Committee. They are not on it to follow any party line, and no party line is ever given to them. They serve as hon. Members with independent minds, and often show robust independence. That is to be welcomed. I would hesitate to introduce a party quota system in that Committee, and to place on the official Opposition the burden of providing even more members of Committees, when they plainly have so much difficulty in finding enough Back Benchers to staff present requirements.

David Taylor: In relation to the question from the hon. Member for Sutton Coldfield (Mr. Mitchell), I believe that all reports from the Standards and Privileges Committee have been unanimous.
	My question concerns the launch by my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Transport on 23 July of a long consultation on the future of British aviation. The consultation period ends in nine days, on 30 November. Many of my constituents have had great difficulty in obtaining the appropriate documentation for the submission of their views. The Department of Transport has resolutely refused to extend the consultation period. Has my right hon. Friend had any intimation from my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Transport that there will be time for a debate between 30 November and the rising of the House four weeks today? Such a debate would allow us to look at some of the issues associated with this very flawed consultation period.

Robin Cook: I must disabuse the House of the idea that there will be many free days in the period to which my hon. Friend refers. However, I fully understand the enormous importance of this issue to many constituents and to many hon. Members. The consultation period has gone on for four months already, which is significantly longer than the standard period. I can understand why my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Transport should feel that the time may have come to draw that consultation to a close, but that will not and cannot be the end of the debate. I am very much aware that hon. Members will want to continue to contribute to the debate on the options that may be selected, and that from time to time it will be necessary for views to be aired in the Chamber.

John Redwood: Will the Education Secretary come to the House to say why, with our EU partners, he has signed up to five very important targets for our education system up to 2010? Those targets will limit our right to fashion education policy in this House. Will he also ask the Transport Secretary to come to the House to comment on rumours that our open skies agreement with the US is now deemed illegal and will have to be denounced by the Government?

Robin Cook: I welcome any opportunity for my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Education and Skills to come to the House and remind hon. Members of the Government's success in attaining the targets for education in the UK that the Government set. For example, we inherited a situation where many infant school classes had more than 30 children, and we have resolved that problem. We have also achieved the best ever literacy and numeracy levels in primary schools, and the best ever GCSE results. In addition, we have the largest ever number of students going into higher education. All those targets were made in Britain and delivered in Britain by this Government.

Keith Vaz: Will the Leader of the House arrange for a debate on competition policy following the decision by Tesco to merge with T and S stores, which will have a serious effect on local convenience stores in my constituency and in those of other right hon. and hon. Members? This is a matter for the Office of Fair Trading, which has extended the time to consider a referral for a competition inquiry, but surely the House can debate these matters in the meantime.

Robin Cook: It is of course entirely open to hon. Members to express their views and my hon. Friend has found an ingenious way of putting his view on the record. He is correct that the matter is before the director general of fair trading, who will consider whether to make a report to my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry. In the meantime, it would be inappropriate for any Minister to go further than that or for the House to debate it. However, I fully understand the importance to our constituents of convenience stores as well as supermarkets, as my hon. Friend reminds us.

Keith Simpson: My right hon. Friend the Member for Bromley and Chislehurst (Mr. Forth) raised with the Leader of the House the press conference yesterday in which the Chief of the Defence Staff effectively contradicted the Secretary of State for Defence about the readiness of the armed forces. This is not a light matter. In the past there have been disagreements between senior military officers and the Government in power and sometimes those have leaked out, but this matter is of fundamental constitutional importance. I should like to know whether the Leader of the House has had any indication that the Secretary of State for Defence will come to the House and say that he is wrong, in which case I suppose that he would have to resign, or that he has no confidence in the Chief of the Defence Staff, in which case he would have to resign.

Robin Cook: I am surprised that the hon. Gentleman is not working for one of the tabloids because he has managed to over-polarise and over-sensationalise yesterday's exchange. [Hon. Members: XNo."] Of course he has. The Chief of the Defence Staff has certainly not expressed any lack of confidence in the Secretary of State, nor argued with him. It is a statement of the blindingly obvious—which the press always find particularly sensational—that if 19,000 troops are engaged in firefighting duties, they are not available for other purposes. Nobody would seek to deny that. I very much hope that we are successful in averting a firefighters' dispute so that those 19,000 troops are free for their military duties. However, I have not heard any reluctance from anybody in the military on the part of those 19,000 troops and their officers to undertake what they are tasked with by the Government in making sure that they provide for public safety. I am sure that many will willingly do it, perhaps with rather greater commitment than the hon. Gentleman has shown.

Gordon Prentice: May we have an early statement on the unfolding environmental catastrophe off the coast of Galicia in Spain? Is my right hon. Friend aware that since 1997 more than 80 oil tankers have gone to the bottom, polluting the seas, and that single-hull tankers such as the Prestige will not be banned until 2015? Given that the UK is a leading maritime nation, why can we not join President Chirac in calling for an immediate ban on single-hull tankers?

Robin Cook: I would not wish to misrepresent the position of President Chirac, but I was Foreign Secretary at the time—I am prompted on this by my hon. Friend the Member for Streatham (Keith Hill), who was the shipping Minister at the time—and in fact President Chirac agreed to the joint effort of the UK and the Netherlands in achieving agreement within the International Maritime Organisation. If I may put the record right, we will not have to wait until 2015 to ban ships such as the Prestige —they will be banned from 2007 under the agreement that was taken with the IMO and reflected in European Union directives.
	Having said that, I fully share my hon. Friend's sense of gravity about the environmental disaster that has occurred to a coastline that I know well, which is renowned for its fishing industry and the excellence of its fish diet. This is a grave tragedy, and I hope that the investigation will provide clear pointers as to who is responsible for the disaster.

Roy Beggs: Is the Leader of the House yet in a position to tell us when he will publish new legislation on policing for Northern Ireland? Given the recent suspension of the Northern Ireland Assembly following the discovery of a republican spy ring at Stormont, does he agree that such a Bill should not include further concessions to Sinn Fein-IRA as that would further damage the morale of the police in Northern Ireland, which is already at an all-time low?

Robin Cook: I am not able to respond at present to the hon. Gentleman's question as to when such a Bill might be published, but I take note of what he says and I fully understand that whenever such a measure is brought before the House the debate will inevitably be coloured by recent events in Northern Ireland.

Jane Griffiths: My right hon. Friend will know that since 1997 the Government have given unrivalled support to public transport and that subsidy for bus services, especially in rural areas, is available as never before. However, does he know that in urban constituencies such as mine there is high car use and traffic congestion, and that no bus service is available to the people of Caversham in my constituency in the evenings or on Sundays? Will he find time for a debate on this issue, which is urgent for all of us, especially in the south-east of England?

Robin Cook: My hon. Friend is correct to point out that substantial additional resources are going into public transport in the rural areas—from memory, I think that the extra amount of such support is more than #200 million. The system is working extremely well but we are not, of course, the bus operator. In many places, as a result of the actions of the previous Administration, companies are overwhelmingly in private hands. I fully understand my hon. Friend's concern about the impact on her constituents and I assure her that we shall continue to do all that we can to ensure that the quality of life in rural areas is maintained.

Nicholas Winterton: I believe that it is the objective of the Leader of the House that the activities of Parliament, especially the House of Commons, should be more relevant and transparent to those whom we represent. Bearing in mind the fact that the right hon. Gentleman has announced debates for the next fortnight on referendums, which affect local government, on the future of Europe and on Iraq, does he not believe that the House should spend more time debating rather than legislating? Would it be possible for two days to be allocated for some of the bigger and more important debates, as has been historically the case, so that more Members can express their view and the Government can be made aware of the views of the people we represent about the critical issues that will be before the House?

Robin Cook: I take the hon. Gentleman's point: we have to get the right balance between legislation and debates, between scrutiny and issues of general concern to our constituents. At this stage of the Session it is important for the House that the scrutiny of legislation announced in the Queen's Speech is under way. Indeed, it is in the interests of every Member that adequate time is available for the scrutiny of Bills, which is why it is important to get the process started. From now until Christmas there will be a high proportion of Second Reading debates, but the more of them we can get out of the way at an early date, the more room there will be for general debates after Christmas.

Iain Luke: Is the Leader of the House aware of an early-day motion that I tabled late in the previous Session, commemorating the election, 80 years ago last Friday, of the only prohibitionist Member to serve in the House, Mr. Edwin Scrymgeour? Given the proposals in the Queen's Speech to extend licensing hours in England, will my right hon. Friend agree to hold a debate on the financial and social costs for the UK taxpayer of alcohol abuse?

Nicholas Winterton: After Christmas.

Robin Cook: Possibly it would be timely for Christmas.
	The fact that only one prohibitionist has been elected to the House in 80 years may say something about the general views of our constituents, to whom I think the new licensing laws will be broadly welcome. However, there are other social factors to which my hon. Friend referred and we must vigorously continue to tackle them, as we are doing through the provisions of the national health service. The House will have an opportunity to debate the issues when the Bill is introduced, which will, I anticipate, be in good time.

Michael Jack: Within the past two hours, some further sad and worrying news has come from Spain—the crash of a pre-production prototype of the Eurofighter. Thankfully, the crew baled out without loss of life and I understand that there were no civilian casualties. However, as the Leader of the House will appreciate, there will be uncertainties and important questions for the tens of thousands of aerospace workers in the north-west of England whose jobs are dependent on the future success of the project. Will he ensure that the Secretary of State for Defence makes a statement on the matter at the earliest opportunity?

Robin Cook: Eurofighter is an immense project, which is of great importance to the British aviation industry, as well as for Europe's defence strategy. I very much hope that any necessary questions will be pursued to find out what may have gone wrong on this occasion. One incident, however serious and life threatening, does not itself call the project into question, so I counsel the right hon. Gentleman not to demand answers more quickly than it is possible for any sensible investigation to find them.

Martin Salter: I too should like to ask the Leader of the House about the vexed question of top-up fees in universities, not in the context of Cabinet collective responsibility but in relation to when Parliament will have an opportunity to express a view on the matter, rather than being sidelined while we take part in what appears at the moment to be something of a spectator sport. Bearing in mind the fact that more than 100 hon. Members have now signed early-day motion 2, is it not high time that a debate was granted on top-up fees for universities so that the views of our constituents can be properly aired?
	[That this House notes with concern that a number of elite universities are making contingency plans for top up fees, which would create a two tier university system; and urges the Government to adhere to its policy of ruling out such extra charges in this and successive future parliaments.]

Robin Cook: As I have already told the House, the Government will publish a review in the new year. From the exchanges today and other occasions, I am certainly well aware of the enormous interest in the matter in the House and the wish that the House will undoubtedly have to debate it, but it seems more appropriate that the House should debate the issue when it has before it a review and a statement of options, rather than in the abstract and in the absence of such a focus for debate. The review will not propose hard-cut single options; it will provide a variety of options, and it will be for the House to express its view on them and it will be fully involved.

Patrick Mercer: I am grateful to the Leader of the House for his comments about holding a debate on Iraq next Monday. Clearly, that is a deeply important subject, but the public conflict between the Chief of the Defence Staff and the Secretary of State for Defence is equally important and deserves not to be subsumed in another debate. Will the Leader of the House confirm whether the Secretary of State for Defence will come to the House to explain the anomalies of view between those two individuals?

Robin Cook: Of course the Secretary of State for Defence will be here on Monday. The debate will most certainly involve those who handle our affairs, and it will be perfectly plain that we will want to ensure that there is full preparation if the military are required in Iraq, but I would advise the House that we require a certain maturity. There is no suggestion in anything said by the Chief of the Defence Staff that he is opposed to any involvement in Iraq if that is required, no suggestion that the services are not ready for that and no suggestion that they are not willing to undertake the duties that are required to stand in for the firemen if the latter go into dispute. The obvious solution to all those problems is that we avert the dispute, but if we cannot do so I do not believe that the Chief of the Defence Staff is seriously saying that he cannot undertake the necessary duties.

Chris Bryant: Unscrupulous commercial landlords can buy houses in my constituency for about #8,000, put tenants in them without making those houses decently habitable and then not concern themselves at all about the antisocial behaviour of those tenants. My constituents hope that that major issue will be dealt with in the draft housing Bill, which was proposed in the Queen's Speech. I wonder whether the Leader of the House can give us an idea of when that Bill might be published and when we might therefore be able to start its pre-legislative scrutiny.

Robin Cook: I fully understand my hon. Friend's concern. The issue that he raises is a repeated concern in many of my hon. Friends' constituencies. Of course what makes it particularly serious is that communities that are already on a knife-edge as to whether they can survive are often destabilised by the actions of such unscrupulous landlords. That is why we propose to provide local authorities with the necessary powers in the forthcoming housing Bill. I anticipate that my hon. Friend will have sight of that draft some time in the new year and with good time for pre-legislative scrutiny to take place in this Session.

Evan Harris: We look forward to the Second Reading of the local government Bill in due course, but I would be grateful to the Leader of the House if he clarified whether it is the Government's policy to repeal section 28 of the Local Government Act 1988, as I was unable to get a clear answer on that yesterday. Will he also clarify why the Government have asked Back Benchers to propose such amendments usually on Report, rather than putting the provision in the Bill itself so that it can be debated fully in Committee?

Robin Cook: I recall that the Labour party has a manifesto commitment on section 28, but on the proceedings in relation to the Bill, it is perfectly valid to table amendments on Report. Indeed, that is a good way for the full temper and view of the House to be heard in a way that cannot be done in Committee, which necessarily consist of only 16 hon. Members. I would robustly resist any suggestion that an amendment tabled on Report is in any way a lesser amendment, and in view of the debates that may take place in the other place, I would suggest that it is not in the hon. Gentleman's interest to press that view either.

Tom Harris: Can my right hon. Friend tell the House when it will have an opportunity to debate the Government's proposed tax on plastic carrier bags, the environmental benefits of which are not as clear-cut as some of its supporters might assume? I ask that because a company called Simpac in my constituency may have to consider laying off up to 40 people if the tax is introduced in its current form. I will have an opportunity to debate the matter next week in Westminster Hall, but all Members would welcome knowing when we will have an opportunity to consider the proposed legislation.

Robin Cook: Any such legislation is a long way away. All we are considering at present is what may be in a performance and innovation unit report that will come out next week. I have read reports in the press that I suspect may be slightly coloured versions of what may be in that review. I invite my hon. Friend to study it with care when it comes out next week, and to vigorously express any view that he feels is appropriate before any legislation is on the horizon.

Peter Duncan: The Leader of the House will surely recall that the Scottish electorate, prior to their referendum for new strata of government, were promised that the cost of their Parliament would not exceed #40 million. With that price now escalating towards #400 million, and with the prospect of the Scottish Parliament having to meet in a public house from September next year, what opportunities will there be for us to make clear to the English regions the poor experience in Scotland of regional government, and to do what we can to explore the issue with every possible means?

Robin Cook: It is for the English regions to consider those factors that they think are relevant when they come to judge whether they wish to vote in a referendum for a regional assembly for themselves. They will no doubt consider many factors, including some of the extremely popular, distinctive polices that have been pursued by the Scottish Executive, and the fact that we have been successful in passing 10 times as many Scottish Acts in the Scottish Parliament as we ever would have passed at Westminster. The hon. Gentleman should be honest with the Chamber and with his constituents, too. If he is really proposing that his party would abolish the Scottish Parliament and end devolution, he should say so. If he is not saying that, he should stop carping from the sidelines.

Julian Lewis: I wonder whether you noticed, Mr. Deputy Speaker, how untypical it was of the Leader of the House to fail to look in the eye my hon. Friend the Member for Mid-Norfolk (Mr. Simpson) or my hon. Friend the Member for Newark (Patrick Mercer) when they raised their points about the Secretary of State for Defence and the Chief of the Defence Staff's extreme concern about the state of the armed forces under this Government. May we have a statement from the Secretary of State for Defence about whether he still has confidence—as he should have—in the Chief of the Defence Staff, even though the Chief of the Defence Staff evidently has no confidence in him?

Robin Cook: This story is now spiralling out into the stratosphere. At no point did the Chief of the Defence Staff say that he had no confidence in the Secretary of State for Defence. If I may say so, the hon. Gentleman has no right to misrepresent the Chief of the Defence Staff, whose words should be treated with greater respect than he is showing for them. Nor did the Chief of the Defence Staff say anything about this Administration's neglect of the armed forces, probably because, as he also served under the previous Conservative Government, he is aware that this Government is the first for 20 years to start to increase defence spending, unlike the massive cuts that he witnessed under the Conservative Administration.

Andrew Robathan: May I take the Leader of the House back to the point made by the hon. Member for North-West Leicestershire (David Taylor), my Leicestershire neighbour, about the questionnaire in the consultation on the future development of air transport in the midlands? May we have a statement specifically on the questionnaire from the Secretary of State for Transport? Not only have my constituents found that they have had to wait months to get a copy of the questionnaire, but it is so hopelessly flawed that it includes the following question:
	XWould you like a greater number of flights from the Midlands to London, or is the current number adequate?"
	There are no flights from the midlands to London.
	The questionnaire has cost the taxpayer a great deal of money. On the basis of this questionnaire, there is a proposal to ruin all the ground between Coventry and Rugby. Will the Leader of the House arrange for a statement on this questionnaire?

Robin Cook: I am aware that there have been a number of complaints about the consultation process, and they will obviously have to be taken into account by those assimilating the response to it. However, I suggest to the hon. Gentleman that there are more airports in the midlands than East Midlands airport. I am not entirely sure that they necessarily agree with him.

Pete Wishart: What assurance can the Leader of the House give us that Monday's debate on Iraq will give us the opportunity to consider a proposition that would compel the Government to seek a United Nations mandate before any military is taken in Iraq? Given that so little separates those on the Government and Opposition Front Benches on this issue, we are unlikely to have an amendment from them. Will he therefore use his considerable influence to ensure that we can consider such a proposition, that it is properly debated and that, if necessary, we can divide the House on the future role of the UN?

Robin Cook: I remind the hon. Gentleman of what the motion for next Monday says. The final part states that, if Iraq fails to comply fully,
	Xthe Security Council should meet to consider the situation and the need for full compliance."
	I cannot imagine any responsible Member of the House who is committed to the UN as the authority for peace and security in the world objecting in any way to any part of that phrase.

Mark Francois: On Monday, the House will debate the very serious prospect of going to war with Iraq. However, yesterday, there was an official Ministry of Defence press conference at which the Secretary of State for Defence and the Chief of the Defence Staff were publicly at variance about the degree of strain placed on the armed forces by having both to prepare for that conflict and to cover for the firemen's strike. Who does the Leader of the House believe is right—the Secretary of State for Defence or the principal military adviser to the Cabinet?

Robin Cook: I have to say that there is nothing original left to say on the topic, and I do not think that the hon. Gentleman has found it. Let me put a question to Conservative Members. If they are really saying that they believe that the conclusion of the Chief of the Defence Staff is that he cannot sustain a military action in Iraq and also handle the fire dispute if that disputes proceeds—is that what they are claiming he said?—will they tell the House which of the two they would jettison and not carry out?

Julian Lewis: On a point of order, Mr. Deputy Speaker. Is it in order for the Leader of the House to ask Opposition Members to respond to a question when they have no opportunity to do so under the procedures of the House? It is clear that the response that we would be able to give is perfectly capable of coping with his question, because we would point out that the extreme concern expressed by the Chief of the Defence Staff is about a matter of overstretch, which the Government have consistently and wrongly denied is taking place.

Mr. Deputy Speaker: That matter has probably been aired sufficiently. No doubt it can be aired again if that is the wish of hon. Members.

BILLS PRESENTED

European Parliament (Representation)

Yvette Cooper, supported by the Prime Minister, Mr. Secretary Prescott, Mr. Secretary Straw, Mr. Secretary Murphy, Secretary Helen Liddell and Secretary Peter Hain, presented a Bill to make provision enabling alterations to be made to the total number of Members of the European Parliament to be elected for the United Kingdom and to their distribution between the electoral regions; to make provision for and in connection with the establishment of an electoral region including Gibraltar for the purposes of European Parliamentary elections; and for connected purposes. And the same was read the First time; and ordered to be read a Second time on Monday next, and to be printed. Explanatory notes to be printed [Bill 7].

Criminal Justice

Mr. Secretary Blunkett, supported by the Prime Minister, Mr. Secretary Prescott, Mr. Secretary Milburn, Mr. Secretary Murphy, Secretary Helen Liddell, Secretary Peter Hain, Hilary Benn and Yvette Cooper, presented a Bill to make provision about criminal justice (including the powers and duties of the police) and about dealing with offenders; to amend the law relating to jury service; to amend Chapter 1 of Part 1 of the Crime and Disorder Act 1998; and for connected purposes. And the same was read the First time; and ordered to be read a Second time on Monday next, and to be printed. Explanatory notes to be printed [Bill 8].

Common Fisheries Policy

[Relevant document: European Union document No. 12137/02, Commission Communication, a strategy for the sustainable development of European aquaculture.]

Elliot Morley: I beg to move,
	That this House takes note of European Union documents No. COM (02) 181, Commission Communication on the reform of the Common Fisheries Policy (XRoadmap"), No. COM (02) 185, draft Council Regulation on the conservation and sustainable exploitation of fisheries resources under the Common Fisheries Policy, No. COM (02) 187, draft Council Regulation amending Regulation (EC) No. 2792/1999 laying down the detailed rules and arrangements regarding Community structural assistance in the fisheries sector, No. COM (02) 190, draft Council Regulation establishing an emergency Community measure for scrapping fishing vessels, No. COM (02) 186, Commission Communication, a Community Action Plan to integrate environmental protection requirements into the Common Fisheries Policy, and No. COM (02) 180, Commission Communication, a Community Action Plan for the eradication of illegal, unreported and unregulated fishing; and supports the Government's objectives, which are to work for a Common Fisheries Policy that is environmentally and economically sustainable, to strengthen the Common Fisheries Policy's regional dimension, to increase industry involvement in decisions on fisheries management and conservation and improve the dialogue between fishermen and scientists, to increase the integration of environmental concerns into fisheries management, to introduce clearer procedures for responding quickly to conservation emergencies, to confirm the 6 and 12-mile access restrictions on a permanent basis, to continue relative stability (including the Hague Preference) and retain the Shetland Box, to ensure greater effectiveness and consistency in control and enforcement of European Union requirements, while attempting to simplify the burden of control on fishermen, to improve the value for money of third country agreements and their coherence with development and environmental objectives and to promote the effective operation of Regional Fisheries Organizations.

Mr. Deputy Speaker: I must inform the House that Mr. Speaker has selected the amendment in the name of the leader of the Liberal Democrat party.

Elliot Morley: I am pleased that the House has an opportunity to debate the take-note motion on the European documents, particularly in the light of the circumstances of which we are all aware. I refer to the Commission proposals and to the very bad recommendations from the International Council for the Exploration of the Sea in relation to the state of North sea stocks and cod, in particular.
	The debate was originally scheduled to give Members an opportunity to discuss the proposals for the reform of the common fisheries policy. That was important in that it would have allowed them to contribute their views. However, we cannot ignore the severe scientific advice on the state of stocks, and nothing could underline more clearly the need for the Council of Ministers to take brave and radical decisions on the future shape of the CFP. We are debating the issue at the right time, because the time for decision is the December meeting of the Council of Ministers. It will not be an easy meeting—they never are—because the December Council will have to consider the annual quotas, the recovery plan and the finalisation of the CFP review.

Robert Smith: It is more urgent than the Minister suggests. Negotiations with Norway are taking place now and the results will set the framework for the meeting of Ministers. So it is crucial that we are aware of the arguments about the latest scientific information and the more subtle messages that come from it.

Elliot Morley: The hon. Gentleman is right. Although we can make progress on some stocks in the agreement between the European Union and Norway, as we will on pelagic stocks and saithe, the outcome of discussions on the North sea and the cod recovery programme will greatly influence decisions on other stocks.

David Burnside: Can the Minister be more specific when he refers to the North sea? Does he mean just the North sea or all the seas around the British isles, including the Irish sea? He is well aware that conservation in the Irish sea is more advanced in respect of moratoriums during the spawning period. We hope that we can defend the North sea and the Irish sea, but can he be more precise?

Elliot Morley: I assure the hon. Gentleman that in my methodical way I am working my way around the seas around the coast. I have no intention of underestimating the possible impact on the Irish sea, the west coast of Scotland or the western approaches. I am the United Kingdom Minister and it is my responsibility to pay heed to the whole of the country and every region in it, which I intend to do. I will specifically address the Irish sea. I understand that particular issues are a priority for fishing industries in particular regions. I work closely with the devolved Administrations and listen carefully to their views so that I ensure that the concerns of their fishing industries are taken into account.

Alex Salmond: I am glad that the Minister mentioned the science. The report by the Advisory Committee on Fishery Management shows that the haddock spawning stock biomass is the largest it has been since 1971; the saithe spawning stock biomass is the largest it has been since 1976; and the whiting spawning stock biomass is the largest it has been since 1991. Prawn stocks are also robust. Even the spawning stock biomass for cod, which is low, has increased 27 per cent. since last year. Given that, where did the recommendations for a total closure or draconian cuts come from, because they are in no way supported by the underlying scientific figures?

Elliot Morley: With respect, we need to interpret the science carefully, including those figures. Although some of them are encouraging, the underlying trends are not good for any stock, including haddock and whiting. It is true that there is a good year class in haddock. One of my objectives is to ensure that we manage that successfully so that we have a sustainable haddock fishery. I wish I could show the House a chart on the spawning biomass of cod. Although we can argue about the details of fishery science, which is not a precise art, there is no question about the trends, and the trend for North sea cod is demonstrated by a line that plummets below its safe spawning biomass.
	The situation is serious. Hon. Members, including the hon. Member for Banff and Buchan (Mr. Salmond), have written to me about it and I propose to invite MPs, especially those from the North sea fishing ports, to attend a meeting to talk about the science in more detail. As the hon. Gentleman has raised the matter, I will try to ensure that one of our scientists attends the meeting to discuss those figures, their interpretation and exactly what they mean.

Andrew George: No one questions the seriousness of the problem, but does the Minister accept that the science is largely based on estimates made earlier this year? It does not take proper account of the effect of the technical and other measures in place, some of which have been taken unilaterally by the industry. Those measures might lead to a significant perceptible improvement in the spawning stock biomass for cod in the North sea later this year.

Elliot Morley: Much has been done in this country. We have not been sitting around doing nothing when we have been considering the science. We identified that cod in particular was in some difficulties. That is why, since 2000, we have embarked on a number of recovery programmes, particularly in the Irish sea. The industry is to be congratulated on its involvement in the success of those programmes. We have a long way to go, however, in achieving recovery from a low base.
	The hon. Gentleman is right about what we have done, and those actions must be taken into account—I shall say more about that in a moment.

David Drew: I thank my hon. Friend for giving way—he has been characteristically generous in doing so. He is aware that the Select Committee on Environment, Food and Rural Affairs is looking into fishing at the moment. We have just come back from Brussels, where we received a gloomy message on stocks. Does my hon. Friend agree that we need an urgent scientific investigation into discard? We should look at the amount being thrown back, as that is completely unacceptable, not only in the operation of a modern industry, but in economic terms—we are almost paying people to cheat or not care about conservation. If my hon. Friend could initiate such an investigation, his epitaph would record that he had sorted the problem out.

Elliot Morley: I am always looking for a good epitaph. My hon. Friend is right—discard is a bane of fisheries management. We hear a lot about marketable fisheries thrown over the side of a boat because the quota has been exceeded. We do not hear very much, however, about high grading or undersized and unmarketable fish which are thrown over the side in large quantities in fisheries in all European Union states. We need to tackle that. Incidentally, one of the proposals concerns effort management on kilowatt days, which I know is controversial in the fishing industry. However, I talk to it a lot about discards, and always make it clear that I am prepared to look at alternative management approaches to reducing them. The annual quota is one method, and has some benefits. However, the only alternative to a quota system that promotes discarding is a form of effort management along the lines of kilowatt days.
	There are mixed views in the industry about that approach, which does not invite universal opposition—there are people who support it. At this stage, where we are negotiating with the Commission, looking at options and talking to the industry, I do not rule any approach out or in.

Alex Salmond: The Minister said that we need to tackle discards. Surely, the scientific research from the research voyages conducted for Scottish fishermen and the Scottish Executive shows that we have tackled discards? The summary of the findings shows that there is a 70 per cent. escape of marketable whiting and a 50 per cent. escape of marketable haddock. When the fishermen went to Brussels on Monday, the Commission said that it had not even considered the scientific evidence for fishing with big mesh and square mesh panels. When will it do so, and when will that be introduced?

Elliot Morley: The hon. Gentleman's comment is true. I am not aware of any evidence in the figures or proposals that takes into account what we have done in this country. I repeat: we have not been sitting back waiting for the situation to get out of hand. There has been a reduction in effort in the UK fleet, and I will ensure that that is taken into account.

John Hayes: rose—

Elliot Morley: It is only courteous to give way to the hon. Gentleman, but may I first point out that this is a standard European debate? When I discussed the procedure for this debate, my office assured me that it would not be an hour of intensive questions, as it normally is. I do not duck that approach, but I want to develop my argument and give other hon. Members a chance to contribute.

John Hayes: In that helpful spirit, I shall limit my interventions to one, as I shall have a chance to challenge the Minister's assertions later. He talked about discards and the industry's efforts. The hon. Member for Banff and Buchan (Mr. Salmond) was right that those efforts have been considerable, but that is not universally so. I draw to the Minister's attention a producer in the south-west who was told by his French counterpart, XOf course we stick to the rules. We only sell officially those fish that can be sold within the rules—the others are sold unofficially." Fish that should have been discarded were being marketed. That is happening widely in other countries, even though their industry is playing it by the book.

Elliot Morley: This year we prosecuted 200 people in the UK who held similar views to the French, so let us not think that everything is perfect in our own country. I shall say a few words about that in a moment.
	Let me focus on reform of the common fisheries policy. There is a link between CFP reform, recovery plans and quotas. We must discuss a number of aspects of the hake and cod recovery plan, which will be dealt with in the December Council. The background to all these issues, which we cannot ignore, is that fishing mortality is too high and is unsustainable. Stocks are diminishing, and although the instruments used under the CFP so far, such as total allowable catches and technical measures, have had some effect, they have failed to produce the reduction in fishing effort on depleted stocks that is fundamentally required. There are various reasons for that, not all to do with the CFP.

Alan Beith: When the Minister speaks of fish mortality, he must surely recognise that fish caught for human consumption are but a tiny portion of fish mortality. Compared with the effects of Danish industrial fishing, what power stations do to fisheries stocks, what seals take and what seabirds take, the amount fished for human consumption is very small. The Minister must ensure that we concentrate our efforts on producing a satisfactory basis for that.

Elliot Morley: Yes, but we must see the problem in perspective. There is natural mortality within the fish stock, and the biggest predator on fish is other fish. There are other impacts, which I do not discount, but we cannot get away from the fact that there is a natural cycle of mortality and that fishing at an unsustainable level is not natural and will lead to a terminal downward spiral of the stocks. We cannot allow that to happen.

Anne Begg: I know that my hon. Friend appreciates that one of the problems of the CFP is that when stocks become unsustainable the suggestion is that one of the fisheries should be closed—in this case, the cod fishery. The processors in my constituency are afraid that if the cod fishing grounds are closed they will not have access to the haddock and whiting. They are terrified—that is genuine, and it happens every three years—that their whole business will be wiped out, because the skills will be lost if those fisheries are closed even for a year. People will go off to other jobs. It happened with the herring a couple of decades ago, and people are anxious that it should not happen this time. For them, the closing of the cod fishery would be the worst decision.

Elliot Morley: I understand my hon. Friend's point. She and colleagues from Aberdeen have arranged meetings with me about their processors. I understand their concerns and their vulnerability. That is an example of the balance that we must achieve in our approach to the problem. I recognise that onshore jobs will be affected by what happens to jobs at sea. I assure my hon. Friend that that is always at the back of my mind.
	On the package of measures relating to the CFP, we strongly support many of the suggestions. There are measures covering the scrapping of vessels, and deals for the granting of subsidies. The Commission's CFP reform package also includes an action plan, which we endorse, to combat illegal, unreported and unregulated fishing, a communication on integration of environmental protection requirements into the CFP, which we support, and action plans on aquaculture and on the management of fisheries in the Mediterranean, which are based on very sensible ideas. The UK welcomes the fact that care for the environment and the adoption of the precautionary approach to stock management are watchwords of the Commission's whole CFP package.
	On the basic package before us, one of the key elements that we strongly support is the abolition across the EU of subsidies for the construction and modernisation of fishing vessels. Given the problems that we face with regard to fish stocks, it makes no sense to subsidise the building of more efficient fishing vessels. We will strongly support the Commission on that. We also support a commitment to put in place recovery plans for fish stocks shown by science to be outside safe biological limits, as well as multi-annual management plans for other stocks. We think that that is the right way forward.
	We support a commitment to establishing effort controls among the management options available in both recovery plans and multi-annual management plans. It is now difficult to believe that the sort of adjustments needed in fishing efforts can be achieved without some element of direct control. We will have to explore that issue.
	We support the retention of relative stability. Indeed, that is one of our key negotiating positions. The retention of relative stability is absolutely essential as part of the reform of the common fisheries policy. It provides the basis for dividing fishing opportunities among member states, which is important if we are to avoid the development of extra pressure on already depleted stocks such as those in the North sea. Related to that issue is the question of Hague preference, which the Commission says will be taken into account in the future allocation of quotas. Again, we strongly welcome that. For us, it must simply mean that Hague preference is retained so that UK fishermen continue to benefit at times when quotas are low, with a recognition of the special circumstances of our fishing communities and the history of fishing in the UK and of our relationship with the European Union.
	We also support retention of the current restrictions on access to member states' 12-mile limits, which the Commission proposed should be given a permanent basis. We will certainly support that proposal. We support renewal of the Shetland box, which we believe is justified on socio-economic and conservation grounds, and a stronger role for the Commission in monitoring member states' enforcement of the rules and promoting co-operation among member states on enforcement—another matter that has been raised in interventions.
	One of our key objectives is putting in place regional advisory councils, drawing together for the first time all stakeholders in fisheries that are of interest to more than one member state. Our idea is that the councils would develop management measures and recommend them to the Commission and Council of Ministers for adoption. We believe that that innovation is vital if we are to improve the effectiveness of management measures. Fishermen in particular need to know that their views count—we need to assure them of that—and to have confidence in the measures that are adopted and some input into decisions about them.
	We need in many cases to seek to shape those key features of the Commission's proposals to take account of the United Kingdom's various concerns and interests.

Peter Duncan: I accept what the Minister says about improving the industry's confidence in the procedures. Does he accept that he and his colleagues throughout the EU would go a long way towards increasing confidence in the industry if they allowed fishermen access to the negotiations?

Elliot Morley: I do not think that the hon. Gentleman is suggesting that I should be accompanied in the Council of Ministers by all the fishermen of the United Kingdom and that all the fishermen of every other member state should also be present. Frankly, there would not be a room in Europe big enough to fit them all in. We must certainly involve the fishing industry as far as possible. That is why I have a meeting with all UK industry representatives before each Council meeting. I usually give them an update of what is going on in the middle of the proceedings and I meet them all again at the end to tell them the outcome. I assure him that we take very seriously the involvement of the industry and that I ensure that it has its say and is kept informed.

Robert Smith: One of the frustrations at the Norway negotiations is that Norwegian fishing industry representatives are present with their Government's representatives, but no fishing representatives are allowed in from the EU side to help back up the negotiations from that perspective.

Elliot Morley: I can tell the hon. Gentleman that our fishing industry representatives are present at the EU-Norway talks. There may be a slightly different system in relation to Norway, but I am not aware that any special treatment is given to Norwegian fishermen's organisations in comparison with ours. None the less, I shall look into the matter for him.
	I was very anxious to be brief, but I am willing to take interventions. I only hope that hon. Members do not hold that against me and that it will count as injury time to be added to my speech.
	On the discussions that are currently under way, hon. Members will be aware that a block of member states has styled itself Xfriends of fisheries", although some say that with friends like that, fisheries are in more trouble than we thought. Those in the group have rather contrasting views. What unites them is their opposition to the abolition of construction grants, but there is a great deal on which they are divided. We are not alone in the Council of Ministers in arguing the UK view.
	s
	We have allies and we respect individual member states' positions. Although we may not agree on every aspect of the CFP with every member state, we have a qualified majority on a range of objectives that are vital to our country. On other matters, including building grants, we do not have a qualified majority. We have a blocking minority, but although I have blocking minorities on a variety of subjects, that applies to other countries and other issues.
	It is in no country's interest to be deadlocked at the end of the year, and I am trying to secure an agreement on the reformed CFP by then. That will require negotiation with the presidency, the Council and other member states.

David Drew: We could push international inspection. The biggest problem in the industry is lack of trust. Is it not sensible to take the friends of fisheries aside and try to negotiate with them about the benefit of having up-front independent inspectors, so that we know what is being caught?

Elliot Morley: My hon. Friend is right. We are already co-operating with other member states. Spain is a good example because Spanish inspectors have visited our ports and our inspectors have been to Spanish ports. We have a good personal relationship with countries such as Spain. That country has made it clear that it does not object to the idea of a stronger role for the Commission in spot-checking and international enforcement that is applied equally to all member states. We would like that to happen, and I believe that we can develop the proposal.
	As I said earlier, it is likely that we will decide on the total allowable catches and quotas for 2003 in terms of the cod and hake recovery plan at the December Council. We do not know what the Commission will propose, but the EU must respond to the severe scientific advice on cod and other stocks.

Andrew George: Will the Under-Secretary give way?

Elliot Morley: I want to make a little progress.
	The advice is that we must introduce a moratorium on fishing for cod and stocks such as haddock and whiting, unless we can find ways in which to minimise by-catches and discards of cod. The implication is that the North sea will shut. Let me make it clear that I do not believe that that is a realistic option. However, we cannot simply oppose it. We must recognise that the Commissioner is responding to the science, and welcome his wish to identify alternative approaches. We should be in no doubt that such alternatives will have a serious effect on fishermen if they are to lead to any stock recovery, but there are options other than wholesale closure. That also applies to the Irish sea and the west coast of Scotland.

David Burnside: Will the Under-Secretary assure hon. Members that a moratorium is not being considered for the Irish sea because of the current state of stocks? He recently said:
	XAt worst the cod situation has bottomed out and at best there are signs of improvement."
	Will he confirm that the Irish sea is not under consideration for a moratorium?

Elliot Morley: I have that point in my notes. A great deal of work has been done in the Irish sea. Although we must be cautious about interpreting the science, it encourages me that there has been an upturn from the almost terminal decline of the breeding biomass of cod in the Irish sea. However, the upturn is modest, and we cannot ignore that. One upturn in one year does not mean that we have turned the corner. We cannot be complacent about the Irish sea, but we are making progress.

Joan Humble: I am pleased with my hon. Friend's statement. Will he reassure Fleetwood fishermen that the full impact of the Irish sea cod recovery programme will be taken into account? They have co-operated with the programme and worked hard within it, and they are more than happy to continue with it. They want it to be fair, and they want the full impact of the past three years to be taken into account so that there is no complete closure, and to ensure that they have a future.

Elliot Morley: I can give my hon. Friend that assurance. She arranged a meeting between the Fleetwood fishermen and me at the recent Blackpool conference. That was constructive, and I acknowledge the work that they have done in co-operating with the recovery programmes in the Irish sea. I understand their point of view, and I can assure my hon. Friend that I will take it seriously in future negotiations.

Bob Blizzard: Does my hon. Friend recognise that long-lining is a highly environmentally sustainable method of catching fish, particularly cod, because it does not result in young dead fish being hauled up in nets, only to be thrown back? Bearing that in mind, whatever has to be done to preserve, or to try to resurrect, cod stocks in the North sea, will he seek a future for long-lining? I do not believe that long-lining is the reason that cod stocks have been so badly damaged.

Elliot Morley: My hon. Friend has arranged meetings for me with his long-liners to discuss the issue. Certain methods of fishing are highly selective and have a very low impact, and I do not think it unreasonable that people using such methods should get some special consideration or treatment. That view may not be shared by other member states, but I am certainly prepared to make a case for it.

Andrew George: The Minister's remarks are welcome, but will he comment on the uneven focus that a number of the member states are giving to other fishery methods? The result is a much-needed focus on the white fish industry, but we are only now reaching the stage of planning that an impact study of the effects of industrial fishing will take place next year. We should be much further forward in dealing with that issue, as industrial fishing has the greatest impact of all on fishing, especially in the North sea.

Elliot Morley: I do not disagree with the hon. Gentleman. Indeed, I do not disagree with many of the points that hon. Members have made, particularly on behalf of their constituencies, which can be quite severely affected by these changes. They are right to raise these issues; it is the responsible thing for constituency MPs to do, and taking their views into account is the responsible thing for me, as a UK Minister, to do.
	We cannot, however, get away from the fact that we must take the scientific advice seriously. Without fish, there will not be a fishing industry. That is not to say that we should not challenge and examine the scientific advice, and I give the House an assurance that that will be done. Attacking the science is not helpful, however, and one or two politicians—not, I hope, those in the Chamber today—have made unhelpful remarks about it. They think that they are doing the industry a service by rubbishing the science and pretending that there is not a problem—but we cannot do that; we have to recognise the reality.
	We must identify an approach to achieving recovery that will impact even-handedly on all the fleets in the European Union, because I have no intention of allowing the UK to take all the impact of such measures. The approach must apply to all affected fisheries, and it must maximise the possibilities for fishing to continue. My ministerial colleagues from the devolved Administrations and I, and our officials, are talking urgently to the industry to identify the options.

Alex Salmond: The Minister has said openly that he disagrees with the International Council for the Exploration of the Sea on industrial fishing. Does he appreciate how disillusioning it is when, after many years of effort by him and other Members, myself included, a fleet moves to using a big 100mm mesh with square mesh panels, only to find that no one else is doing so—not even south of Newcastle, as the Minister is well aware—and that that huge move, in environmental and conservation terms, is not even being taken into account when the recommendations are being made? Does he understand the frustration and anger that that causes among fishermen?

Elliot Morley: Of course I understand that, but it is important for those who represent the industry not to start panicking at this stage. There is a lot to do. The work that we have done on effort calculation—some of which is quite recent; we are still calculating the effort—has not been factored into the equations, but I assure the House that it will be. I will ensure that it is.

Ann Winterton: The Minister has played the environmental card throughout the debate, but is not there an inherent danger in that, as it masks the true agenda for integration and plays into the hands of the Commission? If agreement is not reached by the end of the year, the Commission can introduce six-month emergency measures—which can, I hasten to add, be continued under article 174 of the Maastricht treaty, which relates to the environment.

Elliot Morley: If there is no agreement in the Council, the Commission can introduce emergency measures that could include closing the North sea. For that reason, the alternative case that we make must be sensible and able to stand up to examination. I have a lot of respect and time for the hon. Lady, but I hear a hint of Eurosceptic conspiracy theory creeping in here. I believe that there is a broad-based approach in the House, across parties, to the points that I have outlined and to what we need to do. There is support for that.

Ann Winterton: I am grateful to the Minister for giving way again, because I asked a simple and straightforward question. He answered the first part, about the six-month emergency powers, but will he now accept the fact that article 174 of the Maastricht treaty—

George Foulkes: Which the Tories introduced.

Ann Winterton: I am sure that the right hon. Gentleman voted for it as well.

George Foulkes: The Tories put it through.

Ann Winterton: Right. I shall talk about that later, but now I am asking the Minister, who is in government and in power, whether those emergency powers can be continued under that treaty on environmental grounds.

Elliot Morley: In terms of how the powers apply to fisheries, I understand that they cannot. They are time-limited and temporary. However, I do not apologise for acknowledging environmental issues; they are very important. There is no contradiction between concern for the marine environment and concern for the fishing industry, because the fishermen themselves are concerned about the marine environment. They know that if we do not have strong environmental measures, we shall have no fishing industry. I am perhaps unique among European fisheries Ministers in that I am both an Environment Minister and a fisheries Minister. I find that a strength in my approach and my negotiations, not a weakness.
	The hon. Member for Congleton (Ann Winterton) brings me on to other points. On the environment, for example, I am surprised by the Liberal Democrat amendment, because it is weaker than the Government motion. We make it very clear from the beginning of our motion that we recognise the importance of the environment, but there is no such acknowledgement in the Liberal Democrat amendment. I am sure that I shall not disagree with a lot of what the Liberal Democrats say in the debate, but if they want a strong, credible green policy to defend our fishing industry, they should vote with us tonight. I make that minor point to them now.
	I am sure that we shall hear about national control from the hon. Member for South Holland and The Deepings (Mr. Hayes), but I hope that he can define better than his predecessors exactly what that means. We have national control. I say to him that we face an important issue and a serious situation for fishing stocks. It is important to achieve some consensus here, and ensure that the Conservative party is not dictated to or distracted by its Eurosceptic fringe. That was a real problem for the previous Government and it had far-reaching consequences—one of which, incidentally, is that my Government have been taken to the European Court for fisheries enforcement infractions dating back 11 years from 1996.
	Responsibility for that court case does not lie with Conservative Ministers. I was an Opposition spokesman at that time, so I know that they were doing their best to get to grips with the enforcement problems affecting our own fleet, but the climate created for them by a Eurosceptic rump dictating to the Government made it impossible to introduce such measures. As a result, when I became Minister in 1997, black fish landings were rife in this country. I do not dispute criticism of the common fisheries policy, which is often justified, but the fishing industry must take some responsibility for infringements in the past. Not only is such action damaging; it undermines the science when scientists suspect that declarations are not accurate. That helps no one. It does not help the industry, it does not help the science and it does not help me to make decisions.

Alistair Carmichael: Should we not now be getting scientists on to commercial fishing boats rather than using gear that is 20 years out of date and has no credibility in the industry?

Elliot Morley: That is a common misapprehension. Research vessels use the same gear, because they are carrying out constant effort sampling. They need to use the same gear because they are measuring the same effort over a long period. I agree, however, that it is important to establish a close relationship between scientists and the industry. That is why we have invited industry leaders on to our research vessels, and why we charter commercial fishing vessels as part of our studies, with our scientists on board. In fact, I believe that some vessels from the constituency of my hon. Friend the Member for Blackpool, North and Fleetwood (Mrs. Humble) were chartered recently for use in the Irish sea.
	It is important not to obscure a critical fisheries management issue with Euroscepticism. I was appalled to read some comments by Conservative MEPs who said that the proposed closure of the North sea was part of a great, secret Euro-plot to divide the EU into monopolies so that France would dominate farming, Germany would dominate heavy industry and manufacturing, Belgium would become the centre for Xcentralised bureaucracy"—that does not sound a very good deal to me—and Spain would dominate fishing. Apparently, the whole idea of closing down the North sea is to allow in the Spanish. Those are just silly childish conspiracy theories. The fishing industry deserves better.
	The fixation of the Scottish National party on who goes to the Council and who speaks there is not helpful either; I say that in the most gentle way. Colleagues from the devolved Administrations probably have more access to and involvement in fisheries policy in DEFRA than Scottish Office Ministers ever did. I speak as one who was a MAFF Minister before devolution and has been a DEFRA Minister since. I will ensure that the devolved Administrations are involved in every aspect of decision making, and that their voice, as well as that of the Scottish Office—my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Scotland is here to show her support and commitment—is heard clearly and strongly, expressing their interests as part of a United Kingdom approach.

Alex Salmond: Will the Minister give way?

Elliot Morley: I cannot do otherwise.

Alex Salmond: How does the Minister explain a letter I have received from the general secretariat of the European Fisheries Council? It states that the name of the Scottish Fisheries Minister, Ross Finnie, appeared on one list of participants, but did not appear on the list for a range of other Council meetings. Although the Minister had attended those meetings, his name did not appear. What is the status of the Scottish Fisheries Minister at such meetings? There seems to be some confusion.

Elliot Morley: There is no confusion. It is the Council's practice simply to record the name of the lead Minister of the delegation.
	Under the terms of the devolution settlement, this is indisputably a reserved matter for the Westminster Parliament. I am the lead Minister from the lead Department, but the Ministers from the devolved Administrations are part of the process at every stage and at every level. They are consulted closely. They attend our ministerial meetings in the Department, they attend all our pre-Council briefings, they attend the Council with me, and they speak at the Council supporting the UK line—while, of course, defending their own regional priorities. That is the strength of our approach; it is not a weakness.

George Foulkes: I urge my hon. Friend to ignore the nitpicking of the SNP—and, I must confess, of the Liberal Democrats. It is a question not of who leads the delegation, but of the fact that this would forward powerfully and effectively the voice of the United Kingdom Government and of the devolved Administration. Knowing the people involved, I can say that there is no one better or more capable of putting forward that view effectively than my hon. Friend.

Elliot Morley: I was actually trying to make a point to unite the House—[Laughter.] I may have gone a bit astray.
	My point was that all Members participating in this debate have legitimate constituency concerns, and I take such contributions seriously—from whichever side of the House they come. I am simply saying that there has been some nonsense surrounding this issue. It is a serious one, so let us concentrate on the threats that the industry faces and address them in a responsible way.
	We will carefully examine the science. I have spoken to the Executive and to my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Scotland, and I will give a commitment that we will not blindly sign up to any proposal until we have properly evaluated it, looked at its implications, and considered whether or not it is justified. I also give an undertaking that we will recognise the impact on the fishing fleet—we do not ignore that—in all parts of the country. Northern Ireland's priority in respect of nephrops is very important, and I think that we can address that, along with matters relating to the North sea and the west coast.
	We will of course strongly challenge practices such as industrial fishing. The hon. Member for Banff and Buchan says that I am denying the science, but I am not. I have looked very carefully at it, and we are participating in scientific studies on industrial fishing. However, there is also a precautionary principle. When it comes to a choice between industrial fishing and fishing for human consumption, the latter must take priority on all occasions. An element of doubt guides many of the commission's proposals in terms of a precautionary approach, and the industrial fleets must be part of that approach. They cannot be exempted from it, and we will be making that point.
	We will also look carefully at the proposals for the west coast and the Irish sea. At the moment, I am not happy about the idea that the Commission is simply taking some of the scientific analysis on the North sea and applying the methodology to the Irish sea. That position is not necessarily justified, and I can assure hon. Members that we will consider our approach to the issue closely. The fact is that, whatever we do, I cannot guarantee that there will be no impact on fishing ports and fishing fleets. If there is such an impact, we will of course examine what help we can give through the available structures and structural funds.

David Burnside: I find it hard to talk about Xdecommissioning" without thinking about the other form of it. One of the greatest threats is the permanency of the decommissioning of fishing vegetables—[Laughter.] I meant to say fishing vessels. Is there a form of subsidy similar to the set-aside subsidy that applies to agricultural land? There are strong feelings about that subsidy, but it does keep land in operation, and in the ownership of farms. The issue is keeping vessels in existence, and in the ownership of local fishermen and fishing families who have been involved in the industry for a long time, without permanently ending the use of such vessels.

Elliot Morley: I understand the hon. Gentleman's point, which he has made very articulately before. I realise that decommissioning is double-edged, in that it permanently takes away capacity. The advantage is that other fishing vessels become more viable, and I do not rule out a possible role for decommissioning as part of an overall package. I shall of course think about the issue, and discuss whether decommissioning is appropriate.
	Provision is made under EU rules for time-limited—in other words, not very long—tie-up support. Unfortunately, the problems that we face are not short-term. I do not want to mislead the House, or to duck the issue: turning some of these stocks round will take a number of years. I understand the hon. Gentleman's point, but decommissioning is one of a number of options, although I stress that it is not the only one. I understand the long-term impact that it has on fishing ports, and that will influence the decisions that I take.
	In conclusion, I can promise that we will examine the science carefully. We have done that already in connection with the North sea nephrops fishery, on which I see no justification for restrictions. The Government are clear that that fishery is very important to both Scotland and England.
	We will expect any recovery measure to apply to all nations with access to a particular fishery. We will not accept severe restrictions if other nations do not take their share of the responsibility. We will continue to engage with the industry and with colleagues in the devolved Administrations to find the best way forward. We will vigorously defend our national interest with all the facilities at our disposal, and we will adopt a partnership approach with colleagues in the Scottish Executive, the Scottish Office, Northern Ireland and Wales.
	We are committed to the sustainable management of our seas. We will act responsibly in respect of the science, but we will also defend our industry's interests robustly. It has a proud record, plays an important role and serves vital regional interests.

John Hayes: At the outset, let me assure the House that I have no doubt about the Minister's integrity or knowledge of the subject. He has done this job for a long time, and taken part in many debates in the House. His breadth of knowledge and understanding are remarkable. However, the British fishing industry feels betrayed—by the EU, the common fisheries policy and, most dishonourably of all, by those in this Parliament who have persistently advocated and pursued a policy that has resulted in the dramatic decline of our once-proud fishing fleet and in the consequent damage to communities where fishing is central to the culture and the economy.
	I refer to those communities' culture because fishing is not just a job. It is a way of life, and is usually rooted in families that have been involved in the industry for generations. It is not something that people can lightly give up to pursue another career.
	Many families and communities now face the betrayal that may be the final chapter in this tragic tale. The industry has declined dramatically. For example, the east coast of England once boasted many important fishing ports, but now it is almost bare of this great industry. Yesterday, I met fishermen from the east coast who struggle to continue with their way of life. Their confidence has been eroded and their hopes dashed. We should not be surprised at their solemnity, given the tiny numbers of boats that now set to sea from those once-proud ports. My hon. Friend the Member for Boston and Skegness (Mr. Simmonds), such a champion of the Boston fishermen, tells me that about 20 boats now work out of that port. About 10 boats work from Grimsby, and the same number from Whitby. Scarborough has about four working boats, and Bridlington and Hartlepool a couple each. The Minister must concede that those numbers are as shameful as they are pitiful. However, those ports are in a better state than Lowestoft. Who could have believed a decade—let alone 20 years—ago that Lowestoft would have no fishing industry?

Bob Blizzard: Will the hon. Gentleman give way?

John Hayes: Perhaps the hon. Gentleman will say that the industry has revived in Lowestoft. I should be delighted if that were the case.

Bob Blizzard: When Opposition Members get put on their Front Bench, they do not think that they will be there long, so they make rash statements. Lowestoft has an inshore fleet comprising 18 vessels, and there are nine beam trawlers that stop fishing in the summer. The town also retains its fish market. If the hon. Gentleman thinks that he can talk down Lowestoft fish market and finish it off, he will have the fish merchants down on him.

John Hayes: That is a pretty low intervention, from an hon. Gentleman for whom I have a great deal of respect—although he is not as big as he once was, as we were discussing just the other day. He knows what I meant when I said that the industry had declined dramatically in Lowestoft to the point of extinction. Of course there is an inshore fleet and a fish market in Lowestoft. There is still a thriving fish industry in Grimsby as well, but most of the product that it uses is imported. It is not caught in or anywhere near Grimsby. That is what shocks people. I acknowledge that Lowestoft is not dead in that respect, but the hon. Gentleman, who is a decent and honourable representative of that part of the world, will be as sad as I am that the fishing that it once enjoyed and for which it was famed came to an end just a few months ago.
	The Minister tells us that the British fleet in England and Scotland is still unsustainable, despite the reductions. He did not give a very good answer to the right hon. Member for Berwick-upon-Tweed (Mr. Beith), who said that the decline in fish stocks is at least as much to do with the other threats to fish such as toxins and industrial fishing as with fishing for human consumption. The change in climate, for example, has driven cod further north into the North sea. The Minister was aware of those arguments but dismissed the intervention that pointed out the facts. The Minister has come to the view that the British fishing industry, even in its current form, is, in his words, unsustainable.
	The decline in the fishing industry has cut by a third the number of boats that go out from British ports, but the amount of fish caught has fallen by only about 10 per cent. The Minister will say that that is the whole problem. However, he does not acknowledge that the reason for that equation is that our fish stocks continue to be fished by many other nations using methods that we regard as unacceptable. I will talk later in more detail about industrial fishing. The hon. Member for Banff and Buchan (Mr. Salmond) made a telling intervention about it today, as he did a few days ago. We have yet to have a satisfactory answer. I do not say that the Minister does not have a noble record on this. I have had much pleasure over the last few weeks reading his speeches over many years—they are most entertaining and have been my bedtime reading. He has always been against industrial fishing but his assurances today will come as cold comfort to an industry that sees it perpetuated, particularly by Denmark and Norway.

Elliot Morley: I am proud to have negotiated with Denmark, in a very friendly way, a three-year closure off Scotland on Wee Bankie. It comes to an end this year. I welcome the opportunity to assure the House that it is my intention to continue that closed area because I think that our justification for the original closure still stands.

John Hayes: I am grateful for that assurance but the Minister knows that industrial fishing does not occur only off the coast of Scotland. He would not want to deceive the House in any way, shape or form and he will acknowledge that industrial fishing is a massive problem in waters around the United Kingdom, particularly the North sea, and that the effect has been devastating.
	This further plague of reductions is on a baseline already so eroded that, in many cases, it will be the end of the deep-sea fishing industry from ports up and down the country. This is decommissioning by bankruptcy.

Mark Simmonds: Does my hon. Friend think that, if a tie-up agreement could be negotiated, other EU countries would stick to it?

John Hayes: The Minister has personal experience of this, and I am grateful to my hon. Friend for drawing it to the House's attention. There was a tie-up agreement off the north-west coast in the early part of 2000—the hon. Member for Blackpool, North and Fleetwood (Mrs. Humble) will speak about this with some authority—and the Fleetwood fishermen, being decent and law-abiding folk, abided by it. I was speaking to them only the day before yesterday. Large Dutch and Belgian boats exploited those waters, to the Minister's enormous embarrassment, and he had to trade off a share of our quota in the North sea to bribe them out of the place.

Elliot Morley: I did not.

John Hayes: That is not what the Fleetwood fishermen say. I hope that you will forgive me, Mr. Deputy Speaker, if I give rather more credence to what they say on this occasion. I am sure that the hon. Member for Blackpool, North and Fleetwood joins me in my high regard for those hard-working fishermen.

Joan Humble: rose—

John Hayes: I see that she is about to do so.

Joan Humble: Tempted as I am, I must intervene. The fishermen of Fleetwood saw the relevance and importance of the cod recovery programme, so they actively engaged in the debate. However, in the first year of the programme, they had concerns about which parts of the Irish sea were closed down. My hon. Friend the Minister met a delegation of fishermen in London and listened to what they had to say. That early closure was varied to take the views of the Fleetwood fishermen into account. I hope that the hon. Gentleman agrees that the way forward is to listen to fishermen's expertise and their knowledge of their own areas.

John Hayes: The hon. Lady makes a separate but equally valuable point. Her point is different from that of my hon. Friend the Member for Boston and Skegness. She reminds the House that, when the tie-up agreement was enforced, the fishermen became aware that it was at the wrong time and in the wrong place because the cod had already spawned and moved on. The fishermen knew that before the scientists and drew it to the attention of the hon. Lady, the Minister and the scientists. To his credit, the Minister took note. That leads us to conclude that the fishermen must be involved in all these exercises from the beginning. There must be a partnership between scientists and fishermen. Too often, fishermen have been left out until it becomes clear that they know a great deal about fish stocks and the industry. I should have thought that that was obvious, and I am sure that the hon. Lady agrees.

Alistair Carmichael: The hon. Gentleman makes a compelling argument in favour of regional management. Can I take it that he will join us in the Lobby tonight to support the Liberal Democrat amendment?

John Hayes: I always take Liberal Democrats seriously, usually in the Tea Room, where we enjoy many interesting discussions on this and other subjects.

Andrew George: More seriously than the Tories?

John Hayes: The hon. Member for St. Ives (Andrew George) knows what I mean. I shall talk later about our history together in fishing. He propped me up on a boat in the middle of the ocean when I was about to fall down. It could have caused a by-election, but he saved not only me but the people of South Holland and The Deepings from that experience. However, the point of the hon. Member for Orkney and Shetland (Mr. Carmichael) deserves serious treatment, and I will address it later.
	As well as meeting fishermen from Fleetwood and the east coast, I have also had the privilege, due to the generosity of the hon. Member for Banff and Buchan, of meeting a group of Scottish fishermen's wives. Tragically, they tell a similar sorry tale. Let us look at the effect of a dramatic reduction in white fish takes in Scotland. Let us consider the dependence of the east coast of Scotland on fishing and the proportion of people in the local economy engaged and employed in the industry. The hon. Member for Banff and Buchan has the chart, and I am familiar with it. Fishing is responsible for anything between 20 and 60 per cent. of the employment in some of those communities, either directly or indirectly. Then there is the knock-on effect on the local economy and communities. Imagine the effect on the retail or service sector if we dramatically reduce the fishing income to those communities. I was genuinely moved by those ladies and I will not let them down.
	It is predicted that about 30,000 jobs will be at risk in that part of Scotland, and some 175 boats have already gone. How can we talk about a baseline? How can we talk about the contribution that we have already made or, as the hon. Member for Blackpool, North and Fleetwood pointed out, the commitment that fishermen have already made to this programme of balance, conservation and restructuring?
	All those things are being done in the name of conservation, as we heard from the Minister again today. He is as consistent on that subject as he is on industrial fishing. In 2001, he said:
	XThe CFP is not a great conspiracy . . . Its overwhelming priority is conservation."—[Official Report, Westminster Hall, 20 March 2001; Vol. 365, c. 51WH.]
	By that measure, the common fisheries policy is palpably a complete and utter failure. Even if we could forget what it has done to the fishing industry and to the morale of those communities, we have only to think about what it has done to fish. Uniquely, the policy has damaged both fish and the people who catch them. There is something Orwellian about that.

Geoffrey Clifton-Brown: Will my hon. Friend give way?

John Hayes: Talking of Orwell, I am happy to give way to my hon. Friend.

Geoffrey Clifton-Brown: I am grateful to my hon. Friend, even for that accolade.
	Is not it high time that we examined the CFP? It has been a disaster in every respect: for conservation, for employment in terms of the number of British boats and in respect of discards—the wasted fish that have to be put back. The Government should grasp the nettle, tear up the CFP and negotiate an entirely new fisheries policy with our partners.

John Hayes: That lies at the nub of the problem. The House will admire my hon. Friend's stout defence of Cotswold fishermen. No one engaged in the fishing industry could fail to value his contribution. He is right: the CFP is at the centre of the problem.
	However, there is a difference between Conservative Members, Labour Members, Liberal Democrat Members and minor party Members, although I share many of the concerns of the Liberal Democrats on this subject. The Liberal Democrats believe—we have yet to hear from the hon. Member for Banff and Buchan—that the CFP can be shoehorned, twisted or amended to meet the challenges and the crisis. We have been told that time and again for 20 years. We have been told that with honour and decency—the Minister does not lack decency—but we no longer believe it and nor do the fishermen. Fishermen have been divided on the matter, but their position is hardening against the CFP because they can no longer believe that it can be adapted to meet their needs.

Frank Doran: The hon. Gentleman ignores the fact that for 15 of the 20 years he mentioned we had a Conservative Government. I realise that he is relatively new to his Front-Bench post, but he may recall that there were regular debates on fisheries during the last Parliament when some of the key points related to why the Conservative Government signed up to the CFP in 1972. They did not see the policy as important so they threw it away.

John Hayes: I do not want to be seduced by the hon. Gentleman into discussion of the murky business of how the CFP began when we entered the EU, but in this debate I shall neither defend nor attack previous Governments for their role in those matters, as that is not relevant to us at present. We have a Government who have to deal with the CFP and they have been in power for many years. The Minister has been in his post man and boy. We have to deal with the current situation. That is the imperative.
	The CFP has been a disaster for conservation and for the fishing industry. I do not want to cast too many doubts on science. There is always a tension between the fishing industry and science, as I remember from when we examined these matters in the Select Committee and visited the fishing industry in this country and abroad. Indeed, I remember my dalliance in Galicia with the hon. Member for Great Grimsby (Mr. Mitchell), when we visited a fish market in northern Spain looking for small fish because we wanted to uncover some dreadful scandal. In my broken Spanish, I asked for the small fish and we were directed to another shed. We got quite excited. His camera was at the ready—as it always is—and we ended up looking at sardines. Our plot came to nothing. There is always a tension between the science and the fishermen.

Austin Mitchell: To complete the story, the hon. Gentleman should have added that I photographed some minute monkfish and other small fish that should never have been landed.

John Hayes: The hon. Gentleman makes an intelligent and serious point on the back of my anecdote. It cannot be emphasised too often that small fish are landed and sold. We know that there is a taste for small fish in southern Europe so there is a demand and a market for them. The idea that Xblack" fish are not marketed throughout Europe is nonsense, as he made clear.
	The hon. Member for Scarborough and Whitby (Lawrie Quinn) made an interesting and valuable point during Department for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs Question Time. He said that enthusiasm for the regulatory regime to control such fishing, and the willingness of inspectors to act, varies across the countries of Europe. In Peterhead, there are more people checking up on the fishing industry than there are policemen. There are more inspectors monitoring everything that our fishermen do than any other officials. Is that true in the fishing ports of southern Europe? I suspect not. That is what the hon. Gentleman was alluding to when he spoke earlier.

Malcolm Savidge: I agree about the importance of stopping black fishing and clamping down on it in foreign ports, but we should also acknowledge that we should check on it in our country, although that may not be popular. We constantly hear stories about it both from the catching and the processing sides. It is vital that we have the strictest possible standards and the greatest possible compliance and co-operation in our industry, because we are in crisis.

John Hayes: Typically, the hon. Gentleman makes a fair point. Of course, we have to be diligent and standards must be high. Inspection must be carried out openly, properly and fairly. No one would deny that. I was picking up on an earlier point: I am not confident that standards are universally applied with the same vigour, openness and straightforwardness as the hon. Gentleman advocates.
	The arguments about science, are not about the analysis of declining white fish stocks, as I think we would all acknowledge. That decline is taking place in Norway and in other countries; even as far away as Canada there is a problem with cod stocks. The argument is about what the scientists are not taking into account: the measures that have already been taken. The Minister generously acknowledged that. However, until those things are taken into account, we cannot come to a balanced view about the likely factual and statistical outcome of the measures that are likely to implemented. Scientific analysis cannot be partial; it must be holistic and comprehensive or the industry is bound to question it. Indeed, it is bound to be invalid.
	There has been no proper scientific analysis of the real effects of industrial fishing. Canada and Norway have reduced their cod quotas due to the problems with white fish. Incidentally, haddock quotas in Norway have risen by more than 80 per cent. during the past year. That would be a dream for our fishermen.
	Until we have comprehensive, holistic, wide-ranging and believable science, which has integrity and can be trusted by the House and people involved in the industry, there will always be a tendency to distrust what we are being told. I refer to tension, and we must not increase that tension by producing a partial picture. We have been given no projection, no plan and no notional figures concerning the effect of further restrictions or decommissioning. The Minister said that the process will take a long time, but I want to see notional figures and good arguments based on comprehensive science.
	Our fleet is at breaking point because it can do only so much restructuring—once the fleet has gone, that is it. One cannot restructure nothing. We know that there are exceptional numbers of codlings and young haddock in the North sea because this has been an unusual year, as the Minister will know. If we get rid of our fleet, it will not be able to take advantage of those fishing grounds when young fish grow to maturity and can be harvested.
	In the meantime—I make no apology for returning to this issue—Norwegian and, in particular, Danish industrial fleets continue unabated to catch sandeels for fish food. It takes about 8lbs of wild fish to produce 1lb of farmed salmon. If we do not tackle industrial fishing, with its million tonne quota, these proposals will just be for show. Industrial fishing destroys the food source of mature fish and, via the bycatch of between 50,000 and 100,000 tonnes of cod and other species, it destroys mature and juvenile fish. As we know, there is anecdotal evidence suggesting that the latter are not always discarded. Without measures to curb that shameful situation, we cannot in all conscience expect our fishing industry to commit itself once again to changes recommended by Europe and, today, by the House. We want a degree of balance and fairness in our handling of this matter, and industrial fishing is neither balanced nor fair.
	One of the deepest ironies is that because of the greater numbers of sandeels in Norwegian waters, cod stocks are migrating towards that area so that they can feed more easily. Are we really saying that we will stop British fishermen using their 120 mm nets while industrial fishermen continue to use their 16 mm or even 8 mm nets? We cannot do so with any pride or decency.
	I am now going indulge in the Xirrational Euroscepticism" suggested by the Minister because I like to live up to my stereotype. I do not want to disappoint him, and I would not want anybody to say that I was not on top form. I shall set the matter in context. The European proposals are not principally about conservation, although there is concern about that. They are not even about fishing at all; they are about European integration and the subordination of our national interests to central direction. Competency for fishing lies within the Commission, and the proposals come not from our Ministers or the Government but from EU Commissioners through treaty obligations about which the Minister has little to say because he has little control over them. I do not blame the Minister for that because it is a simple fact of life.
	The Prime Minister must take the lead on this. He must face up to our European partners. We are sending our second XI to the current fishing negotiations. The matter must be elevated. We should say that fishing matters. The Prime Minister should take it up personally and raise it in the corridors of power in Europe. Ultimately, we must have the courage to take control of these matters, but not through a regional or zonal system. That would simply create many common fishing policies. We would have a multiplicity of centrally directed, bureaucratic and insensitive policies.

Robert Smith: Will the hon. Gentleman give way?

Lawrie Quinn: rose—

John Hayes: I will not give way because I want to make progress and the Minister is chivvying me to conclude my remarks. He does not like it and he is looking up at the clock, thinking, XHow long is this going to go on? I can't take much more of this pain and punishment." I do not want it said that I will be the man to inflict that pain on him. I will give way to the hon. Member for West Aberdeenshire and Kincardine (Sir Robert Smith) after I have given way to the hon. Member for Scarborough and Whitby (Lawrie Quinn), who made such an important point about regulations.

Lawrie Quinn: I thank the hon. Gentleman for his comments. The name of the place that I represent is Whitby, not Whitney.

John Hayes: I did say Whitby.

Lawrie Quinn: There seems to be a problem of geography, but never mind. The hon. Gentleman is welcome to come to Whitby whenever he likes.
	The hon. Gentleman gave a compelling diagnosis of the problems in the industry. I am sure that many people in the ports that I represent will have found his comments sensible, but they will be waiting for answers. Everyone in the House would like him to provide the answers, rather than going down the well trodden route taken by previous Conservative spokesmen and spouting Eurosceptical dogma.

John Hayes: None of my Eurosceptic views is dogmatic. I am familiar with Whitby. How could I not be familiar with the birthplace of Captain Cook?

Lawrie Quinn: indicated dissent.

John Hayes: Captain Cook was not born in Whitby? He lived there. There is a huge statue of him in Whitby and he had associations with the town. I am not going to give way so that the hon. Gentleman can correct me. I will give way instead to the hon. Member for West Aberdeenshire and Kincardine.

Robert Smith: I am concerned that the hon. Gentleman dismisses regional management too quickly when many in the industry view it as crucial. Fish do not respect national boundaries, and it is far more important to manage what happens within the regional fishing area, such as the North sea. If we did not have management across the whole of the North sea, over-fishing on one side would have meant recovery programmes on the other side failing completely. The industry has been demanding regional management, so that those who are affected by the decisions have a say in the results.

John Hayes: The industry would have said that once. When, as a member of the Select Committee, I looked at these matters in great detail, that view was expressed by some in the industry. However, there was division and some believed in national control. Now the industry has changed its view because it is increasingly coming to believe that we can no longer pretend that the common fishery can be made to work. It is rotten at its very core.
	The hon. Gentleman made sound points about local sensitivity and about involving the industry through proper collaboration and consultation. There is also a need for proper co-operation between nations. The Minister wrote to me in October, saying, sensibly, of course we need Xinternational agreement and co-operation." However, he said in the same paragraph:
	XA common approach is essential to tackle European fisheries under the auspices of the common fisheries policy."
	That is the error—we can have international agreement and co-operation, which is an inevitable part of dealing with fishing because, as the hon. Member for West Aberdeenshire and Kincardine rightly says, fish know no boundaries. However, the accountability for that, and the management of it, should be vested in nation states. The Minister looks surprised, but he knows that that is precisely what happens in some of the most successful fishing nations in the world, including New Zealand, Namibia, Iceland and Norway.

Elliot Morley: The hon. Gentleman is, to use a fishing phrase, going a bit adrift. Theoretically, of course, a number of fisheries nations can pursue different policies, but we share the North sea and the English channel. Is the hon. Gentleman suggesting that we draw a line down the middle and have one catch on one side of the line and a different catch on the other? Should we have different mesh sizes on each side of the line? That is not a conservation policy; it is anarchy. No matter what terms the hon. Gentleman uses, there has to be a common framework in European waters.

John Hayes: The hon. Gentleman is being a little disingenuous because he knows very well that the countries with governance of their own waters that I have mentioned—I could have listed many others—have agreements of the type that he describes. He knows very well that the European Union has an agreement with Norway; he was talking about negotiating such an agreement only a few moments ago, when he was challenged on why he will not let the fishermen around the table given that Norway is very happy to do so. Of course there are agreements on the very subjects that he describes, but the fact is that the governance and accountability for the policies that a nation develops about its fishing industry should rest where sovereignty rests—and sovereignty should rest in the House.
	I feel sorry for the Minister because with all his knowledge—I have acknowledged his understanding of such matters—and all his good intentions, the truth is that he cannot do many of the things that he would like to do. He is stuck in an amalgam, in which people always want to find some shoddy compromise, rather than to pursue the genuine interests of the nations of Europe.

Lawrie Quinn: rose—

John Hayes: I will let the hon. Gentleman intervene again, so long as he does not talk about Captain Cook.
	I refer not only to the interests of Britain because the Minister will know that the common fisheries policy has been a disaster not just for Britain, but for many European countries. I would make this argument if I were a representative of several other countries of Europe. For example, the hon. Gentleman will know that the EU has had to buy African fishing rights. There are very real concerns about the cost and effect of that on those African nations. Not only have they suffered from deaths caused by the very large boats using their waters, but their own fishing industries have been damaged economically, and their local communities have been damaged by those activities. That has happened in a desperate effort to prop up the Spanish industry, so the Spanish industry, which has also declined, has suffered from the common fisheries policy. This is not a narrow or xenophobic point because I am not a narrow or xenophobic person.

Lawrie Quinn: I am most grateful to the hon. Gentleman for giving way for a second time. He has demonstrated his prowess as a student of history and geography this afternoon. My hon. Friend the Minister asked him about a putting a north-south line down the centre of the North sea, but where would the hon. Gentleman put a line between the Scottish and English fisheries? The right hon. Member for Berwick-upon-Tweed (Mr. Beith) is here, and I am sure that he would be very interested to hear the hon. Gentleman's answer to that question.

John Hayes: That problem is not as significant as the hon. Gentleman pretends.

Lawrie Quinn: indicated dissent.

John Hayes: Well, many of the issues that we are debating today are common to the industries of Scotland and England. We talk about conservation, aid to the communities, the effect of the changes and the impact of regulation and inspection, but there is not much difference between the impressions of English fishermen and those of Scottish fishermen.

Alex Salmond: rose—

John Hayes: Before I give way to the hon. Gentleman—I do not want him to breach the unanimity that I hope to achieve as I approach the last part of my speech—I wish to tell the hon. Member for Scarborough and Whitby, who raises the issue of my knowledge of geography and history, that he will be sorry to know, given my earlier remark that I am trained to teach history, whereas I have only an O-level in geography. I plead guilty to the point about geography, but not to that about history.

Alex Salmond: rose—

John Hayes: I shall let the hon. Gentleman intervene very briefly because I want to make some progress.

Alex Salmond: I know that the hon. Gentleman has been reading up, but he should be aware that the Conservative party and the Labour party combined in 1999 to transfer 40,000 square miles of Scottish waters to English jurisdiction, and I can tell him that that was opposed by every Scottish fisherman; there was no division on that.

John Hayes: There are always local difficulties between those splendid nations that are happy to be part of this glorious United Kingdom, and I know that the hon. Gentleman celebrates precisely that.

Mark Simmonds: May I assure my hon. Friend that the fishermen in Boston are against regional control—the regionalism that the Liberal Democrats purport to support—and very much for national sovereignty in fishing policy.

John Hayes: I am delighted to hear that. As I said earlier, my hon. Friend is known as a doughty champion of the fishermen of Boston—they are largely cockle fishermen—and he will know that, in particular, they face environmental problems in the Wash and that those stocks have been affected by toxins and climatic change. He has taken up those matters with the vigour for which he has already become renowned since being elected.
	We should follow the example of those countries that have had the courage to take control of their own fisheries policies. Although I acknowledge the fact that the Liberal Democrat amendment has merit, especially in its analysis of the problem and in emphasising many of the current problems that we face, I have to say that I do not buy the solution. The hon. Member for St. Ives has a deep knowledge of and a real commitment to fishing, but I suspect that the Liberal Democrats' fisheries policy is driven more by their overall policy on European federalism than by the interests of the fishermen.
	In my judgment, as the debate becomes louder and more widely heard in the next few weeks and months, fishermen will conclude that the only way that we can really offer them a glimmer of hope is by having the courage to take control, rather than having to get involved in these rather grubby deals that are done behind the scenes in smoke-filled rooms without the fishermen being present, as we have already heard. [Interruption.]
	Let me just deal with this point once and for all. If the Prime Minister was really concerned and fishing were a high priority for the Government and a dominant issue in European discussions, the Liberal Democrats' argument might hold some water, because the Prime Minister could then negotiate the sort of zone or regional system that they favour, but the truth is that none of that is so. Fishing will be abandoned; it will be traded off and given away as part of some bigger deal in the negotiations. That is the truth of the matter, and no one can dutifully and honestly advocate the reform of the common fisheries policy because it will not be made a priority or made to fit the needs of the British industry, nor those of several other European industries.

Malcolm Savidge: Will the hon. Gentleman give way?

John Hayes: I must make more progress. I hope that the hon. Gentleman will concede that I have been generous in giving way.
	Of course the hon. Member for Banff and Buchan is a doughty champion of fishing interests in Scotland, but unlike the Liberal Democrats, who at least recommend some solutions to the problems of regional control, he identified the problems very cogently in his amendment but offers no solution. I hope that he will support me in saying that the United Kingdom should take control of such matters, but I rather doubt it.
	I want to say a word about relative stability. The Government argue in their motion for the continuation of relative stability, which is at the heart of their approach. The Minister has previously argued many times that we are protected by that principle, but how can we share out EU resources among EU people and maintain the same size of United Kingdom fishing fleet? Of course the answer is that that cannot be done. Britain's share can only decrease, so we may say that too many British fishermen catching the for ever shrinking share of resources is the result of relative stability. The proposed solution will eliminate British fishermen, so fishermen ask: why just ban catching cod, haddock and whiting, which happen to be the fish that we catch? Is it solely because of the conservation issues? Fishermen are understandably sceptical—I say no more than that—about that kind of policy.
	I have a number of questions for the Minister. Is it not the case that, in the past 20 years, there has been no serious effort to conserve fish stocks and that the Commission's only solution has been to reduce quotas and accelerate decommissioning, with the result that there has been the increase in discards, as he and the House know?
	Industrial fishing has destroyed the food chain, so why has that been allowed to continue for so long? It is a scandal that our countrymen will be stopped from fishing with the large-mesh nets that I have mentioned, while allowing industrial fishing to continue to use 16 mm and smaller nets.
	Will the Minister protect access to the deep-sea fisheries westward of the British Isles—an important new area for many Scots fishermen, where they have made significant inroads? I am afraid that they will suffer drastically under the new proposals, and we should have a commitment from the Minister on those matters.
	Is it not true that the EU policy, which has destroyed the food source and causes adult fish to be dumped and baby fish to be sold, does not give nature much of a helping hand? Can we have a guarantee that enforcement—the issue raised by the hon. Member for Scarborough and Whitby—will not be a uniquely British phenomenon, and that compliance and serious commitment will be evident across the European Union?
	In all of this, I am afraid that I have little faith in the Prime Minister. I read in The Times today that whereas most of us have pictures on our desk of our wife, our baby, our father or the Duke of Wellington, he has a picture of President Chirac! That is why I have little faith in the Prime Minister—he is not committed to British fishing and the British interest. He is not committed to the nation in this respect: he will sell us out in Europe, as was illustrated by his dismissive answer to a perfectly fair question that was put to him yesterday. He is preparing the industry for its demise. That is the truth of the matter.
	We must not allow our fishing industry to be traded off in some disreputable EU deal. The Prime Minister could have said yesterday that aid, assistance and financial support for the communities of Britain that rely on fishing must be at least equivalent to those enjoyed by other countries. He could have said that, during any tie-up, all foreign boats must be made to honour any restrictions. He could have said that industrial fishing, which causes immense damage to the food chain and therefore to the level of food stocks for white fish, must be stopped. He could have said that conservation measures should be developed in partnership with the industry. He could have said that third country agreements must be urgently reviewed with the aim of a dramatic reduction in cost and in the damage that they do to the other countries. He could have said that we will defend our industry openly, honestly and purposefully—but I fear that I expect too much from him.
	The cynical and contrived nature of EU politics means that many in the heart of Europe view the painful crisis faced by our fishermen and others as Xbeneficial". It is not beneficial to those hardworking, decent men, their wives and their babies, whom I have met in the past several weeks. It is not beneficial to their communities, to our land or to our nation. Let me tell the Minister, the House and our fishermen that the Conservatives do not share the Prime Minister's complacent acquiescence. We will champion the British fishing industry, and we will work with other parties who are prepared to share that campaign with the industry and with us. We will fight to secure the fishermen's future, because their battle is our battle, and it is emblematic of the battle for our nation, for our right to decide on policies that affect our communities. We will fight for our right to govern ourselves.

Frank Doran: It is always interesting to hear the views of the Conservatives. I am sure that the hon. Member for South Holland and The Deepings (Mr. Hayes) took comfort from the fact that his predecessor in post, the hon. Member for Congleton (Ann Winterton)—her constituency is that well known fishing port—is sitting directly behind him.
	The hon. Gentleman was pulled up a little by my hon. Friend the Member for Scarborough and Whitby (Lawrie Quinn) on history. Perhaps if he had concentrated a little on history before making some of the points in his speech, he might have done a little better, especially in relation to his plaintive cries that the Prime Minister should pay more attention to the fishing industry. I remind him that the last time a Prime Minister put fishing at the top of the agenda, he gave the industry away, walked into the common fisheries policy, and created almost 30 years of turmoil in the Conservative party. I see the hon. Gentleman nodding at that, and I am grateful for an acknowledgement. The matter is being dealt with properly, and I am delighted that my hon. Friend the Under-Secretary is joined in the Chamber by my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Scotland, to acknowledge the importance of the industry not just in the UK but particularly in Scotland.
	Clearly, this is a difficult time for the industry. In all the years I have been attending fisheries debates, there always seems to be an air of crisis at this time of year. On this occasion, the crisis seems a little more real than on previous ones. That is no wonder, given the bombshells of the scientific evidence and the response from the Commission, especially the threat of a complete ban on cod fishing and severe restriction on other quotas—particularly white fish quotas—not just because of the state of those stocks, but because of the cod by-catch. That has caused real fears in the fishing industry.
	There are many reasons why we are here today, some of which we understand, some of which we are still trying to learn about. There are some very important points to make, and I acknowledge the robust stance taken by my hon. Friend the Under-Secretary on the position that the Government will take in the Council negotiations next month. It is important that that be maintained to the bitter end.
	My first point is that we are seeing a significant sea change in the way in which we look at the issue of conservation. In the past, with the odd exception of some effort control, the main tool has been limitation of catching. We have controlled it by quota, by technical measures and by gear changes, and it is clear that that has failed over the years. When one speaks to people in the industry, one finds that there is a great deal of cynicism about the effectiveness of controls on the catch. One prominent member of the industry recently said to me that catching controls would only have worked if we had had a policeman or inspector on every boat. Clearly, that would be ludicrous.
	As the Under-Secretary pointed out, however, the industry has a history of black fish—and, sometimes, illegal fishing—of very high and often unnecessary discard rates, of wrong reporting, and sometimes of elaborate methods to circumvent the technology. I know from my experience in north-east Scotland that although the industry body, the Scottish Fishermen's Federation, makes tremendous efforts and takes a lead in introducing and encouraging new technological measures to limit catching in the North sea, not all members of the federation follow that lead. It is important that that be understood. If we accept that we are currently in a crisis, we must be realistic and honest, and the Under-Secretary was certainly honest.
	The realities in the North Sea and other fishing grounds are such that there is enormous pressure on our fishermen, which is another part of the reality. It is part of the culture to catch fish while they are there—by the next visit, the fish will have moved on or someone else will have caught them. I understand that pressure. The most important thing about catching controls, however, was that they were an attempt to use biology as part of the process of making the scientific evidence relevant. The contribution of scientists to the debate, in using biological measures as the basis for establishing quotas, is entirely justified. That also enabled scientists to avoid any responsibility for the social and economic consequences of their advice.
	What the Commission proposes is different. We have had attempts at effort limitation previously—in the early 1990s, when we had tie-ups and days at sea—but they have not lasted. However, that seems to be the direction in which we are heading, as the Commission proposes to impose effort control and limits on fishing capacity. If the result of scientific evidence is that our fishing boats are tied up in harbour, and fishermen cannot go out to earn their living to feed their families—or, in most cases, to service their substantial bank loans—the scientists are moving themselves right into the centre of the debate in terms of the socio-economic consequences of their decisions. There is a big difference between imposing a quota on a man who goes out to do his daily work of catching fish—which may or may not be there—and saying that he cannot do that. That marks a significant shift in the Commission's policy and the way in which it should be viewed. When the Under-Secretary attends the Council next month, I hope that that point will be borne heavily in mind. I know that he has heard, and will hear from, my colleagues from the north of Scotland in particular—they sit on the Opposition Benches—about how devastating the consequences of the Commission's proposals are. It is extremely important that all of that be borne in mind.
	Because there are dire socio-economic consequences for the catching side, for the communities that rely on their efforts, and for the processing side, which still relies heavily on locally caught fish, there is no doubt that we face serious restrictions and that we need to implement strong conservation measures. The policy should lead to a sustainable fishing industry, and it is important to put it on the record that both sides of the industry have been working hard to develop policies for sustainability.
	I recently received a report from the Fish Industry Forum entitled XSustainable Seafood—Working Together". It has been submitted to my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State, and the objectives in the report are important. It wants
	Xa profitable and sustainable seafood sector that competes internationally, is a good steward of the marine environment and provides good food and a significant contribution to a healthy diet for people in the UK and around the world."
	Most important, the forum says:
	XWe want to set up a new working partnership between government and industry."
	We have waited years to hear that sort of language and it is a bit of a tragedy that it comes through only at a time of crisis in the industry.
	The industry needs time and support to adjust. That is why I am particularly worried by the way in which the Commission approaches its responsibilities. It seems to be suggesting an abrupt, almost overnight, move from catching controls to very severe effort limitation, with no time for the industry to adjust and for the Government to introduce the necessary support measures.
	It has always been a mystery to me why anyone should tolerate decisions on how the industry should operate from 1 January being taken in virtually the last days of December. That is one of the hazards that the industry faces. It is impossible to plan and for anyone to develop a proper operation for their business. I know that we are moving to multi-annual quotas, and they are to be welcomed, but it has taken a heck of a long time to get there. However, and more important, rapid change and abrupt turns need time to be implemented, and the Commission's proposals are not the best way to do that. I hope that my hon. Friend the Minister will bear that point in mind.
	I refer to a recurrent theme at this time of year. I am concerned about the agenda for the Council meeting in December. The future of the CFP is being shoved on to the same agenda as all the other important issues that are traditionally debated at this time of year. I have spoken of crisis, but we in the House must work hard to be responsible and not talk up a crisis. It is easy for an Opposition to do that. I have been in opposition, and I know how often we did it. However, it is important not to talk up a crisis, because people's livelihoods are at stake. They are worried. Their bank manager is phoning up to tell them that he has been reading the local newspaper and about the crisis in the industry and asking whether they will be able to pay their loans next year. The pressure is on us now and not next year, when the measures may or may not bite.
	I am deeply concerned about what has been the almost traditional approach of the Commission. It has introduced what appear to be draconian measures and puts them on the table on the basis that they will be discussed. However, that is done in the full knowledge that negotiation and settlement will take place much further down the chain. That is extremely worrying. However, I am even more worried this time, because there appears to be an attempt to trade off the annual negotiations against the longer-term review of the CFP. I am worried by the Commission's approach. I hope that my hon. Friend will recognise that the issues must be separated. The CFP must stand in isolation, and we must not be bullied by the Commission's threat of draconian measures into accepting measures that we would not otherwise accept.
	My main concern is with the fish processing side of the industry. In modern times at least, there has been the assumption that, whatever happens in the North sea, the processing industry will be okay because it can survive on imports. It is true that a large proportion of the cod that is processed in Aberdeen, Peterhead and Fraserburgh is imported. It comes from Iceland, the Barents sea and some from as far afield as China. However, the industry makes it clear that it still relies heavily—the figure is about 60 per cent.—on the white fish caught in the North sea.

Michael Weir: Does the hon. Gentleman accept that what he says about imported fish applies to large processors? There are many small family firms in my constituency and they rely totally on fish landed at Scottish ports, principally Fraserburgh, Peterhead and Aberdeen. The closure of the fishery will destroy such firms. The large firms may be able to survive with imports, but the small ones cannot.

Frank Doran: I understand that point entirely. The firms in my constituency range from small one-man businesses to larger companies.

Lawrie Quinn: Does my hon. Friend agree with the concern expressed on the quayside at Whitby about the Faroese, in particular, dumping stock, depressing the price and, therefore, compounding the problem that the industry faces?

Frank Doran: Prices are falling because supplies are healthy from the Faroes and Iceland.

Malcolm Savidge: My hon. Friend is making an excellent, balanced and comprehensive speech. As recently as last week, our producers in Aberdeen were telling us that, although it is true that some people can rely on imports, a number of local processors rely on perhaps as much as 85 per cent. of white fish caught locally.

Frank Doran: My hon. Friend makes his point.
	I have spoken to many processors and they express a range of views. The most consistent opinion that they express—this will probably cause dismay to many catchers who do not already know this—is that they support a total ban on cod fishing but that the quotas for haddock and whiting should be appropriate to the stocks. There will be a by-catch with the haddock and whiting, and many processors recognise that such a ban would cause great difficulties for many fishermen, particularly those who invested heavily in buying up cod quotas. They would face serious difficulties. It is not an easy choice and I do not pretend that it is. However, I know that my hon. Friend the Minister will bear such issues in mind in the negotiations.
	The fish processing industry employs about 4,500 people. The figure constantly fluctuates, but processing is still a major industry in the north-east of Scotland. Even Aberdeen, which is a significant oil town and known as the energy capital of Europe, relies heavily on the fish processing industry. In fact, my recent discussions with the industry have concentrated as much, if not more, on labour shortages as on quotas. The industry is still a major contributor to the local economy. The industry will find it difficult if cuts to the haddock and white fish sector of the market take place on the scale suggested. The industry already faces a skills shortage and we might lose the skills that we have. We lost skills in the herring industry 20 years ago, and we do not want that experience to be repeated. A significant number of my constituents depend on the fishing industry, and skills have been acquired. Those skills are not transferable, and we want the industry to be sustained.
	We face difficult times. I know from my private conversations with my hon. Friend the Minister that he fully understands the importance of the fishing industry to Scotland and to the whole UK. I know that he will fight our corner—this is the party political broadcast. It is important at any time of crisis to recognise that there may also be opportunities. For years in Edinburgh, London and Brussels, we have debated the need for a sustainable sea fishing industry. We have made some progress, but most of the time we have lurched between annual quota negotiations without too much sense of direction. Out of this crisis may come an opportunity to lay the ground for a properly structured system that is based on sustainability and tied to conservation measures that can guarantee a viable future for the industry.

Andrew George: I beg to move, as an amendment to the motion, leave out from Xfishing" to end and add:
	Xcalls on the Government to resist any proposal for inappropriate and excessive cuts in fishing effort and Total Allowable Catches for 2003, to confirm the 6 and 12-mile access restrictions on a permanent basis, to continue relative stability (including the Hague Preference) and retain the Shetland Box, and to seek the early review of third country agreements; believes that future policies must be based on Regional Management Committees through which fishermen would work with scientists and governments to agree sustainable and fairly enforced zonal management for their local fisheries; and calls on the Government to work with the devolved administrations and the fishing industry to produce its promised strategy for the long-term sustainable future of the UK fishing industry and to seek backing for this strategy at meetings of the EU Fisheries Council."
	Given that we have little more than two hours left, I shall do my best to be brief. Many hon. Members have a great knowledge of the fishing interests in their constituencies, so it is a pity that a disproportionate amount of time was taken up by the Tory Front Bench. Although I like the hon. Member for South Holland and The Deepings (Mr. Hayes)—[Interruption.] I do not want to get into an argument about time, because that will only result in the loss of yet more time.
	There is a gathering consensus among hon. Members who represent constituencies with a fishing interest. The Government motion is ostensibly about the common fisheries policy. A great tome has been presented to the House on aspects of that. It is clear that those who know about and understand fishing constituencies are coming to recognise the right and proper direction that the policy is taking.
	The Liberal Democrats have not tabled the amendment because we disagree with the Government motion. Our concern is that it does not reflect the debate in the industry and the concerns about what might happen as a result of negotiations on future quotas for stock, especially around the UK's coast. It is important to ensure that the debate gives time to those issues. We want to put fire in the Minister's belly and hope he accepts that some of the science is questionable. He said that we should challenge the science if it can be robustly attacked on scientific grounds, and take our concerns to the Commission.
	The question is whether we will sustain enough of the fishing industry in this country to make a debate on the future of the common fisheries policy worth while. The hon. Member for Aberdeen, Central (Mr. Doran) rightly said that we often debate the future of the fishing industry at this time of the year, and every year we are at various degrees of crisis management. Although I do not want to say that we have cried wolf, it is important to realise that the issues are now so serious and deep that we have gone beyond crisis management. If the proposals by the Commission and ICES are accepted, they will have a significant impact on fishing communities not just in Scotland, but around all the UK's coast. The problem demands special measures and urgent attention. We need cross-party consensus on how to proceed. It is clear that the future of the fishing industry is far more important than narrow party political point scoring, which is often a factor in the debate. I will do my best to avoid that.

Lawrie Quinn: I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman for his remarks. In that spirit, does he agree that it would be appropriate for fishing communities around the country for the Liberal Democrats to withdraw their amendment? They have in a sense provoked the debate, although it is not necessary to put fire in my hon. Friend's belly.

Andrew George: I am sure that the Government will accept our amendment after the Minister reflects on what my hon. Friends and I have to say on such serious issues. Our amendment embellishes and improves their motion.

Alex Salmond: I think I have a way out of the impasse. If the Liberals and the Government accept the Scottish National party amendment, we will all be in agreement.

Andrew George: Enough of this jocularity. Let us get on with the main business.
	The Minister said that his criticism of our amendment was minor because we have not incorporated the word Xenvironmental", but Liberal Democrats do not need to do that. As we have tabled the amendment, it is self-evident that it is on the basis of environmental sustainability. We do not need to state that, but the Government clearly do.
	We welcome the general direction of the common fisheries policy, which favours the implementation of multi-annual quotas. In the first year that I came into the House, I could not believe that we had to face 11th-hour brinkmanship. I suggested multi-annual quotas, but that was met with derision. So if they are successful, I want to claim some credit for them. If they are not, however, I might find someone else to blame.
	Regional advisory councils are welcome but do not go far enough. I think the Minister accepts that we need regional management councils instead. They need teeth. It is clear from unilateral measures in one fishing zone in Scotland that the industry can benefit from a more localised shared concern about the future of a fishery in one region or zone. That is helpful.
	Extension of the six and 12-mile limits is also important for sustainability, but the common fisheries policy is weak on the problem of industrial fishing. As I said, an impact study on industrial fishing is only now being considered for next year, but draconian measures are already being introduced to many other sectors. Attention is only just being turned to the full impact of industrial fishing.
	The Government need to be certain that aquaculture, which is dealt with at the end of the papers, is properly assessed. We need to be sure that the sea has the capacity to enable that to happen. I hope that in developing aquaculture we will not deny or discourage hatchery projects. Those have been successful, certainly off the north Cornish coast, and we should encourage them.
	We all agree that it is important to have a sustainable fishing industry. However, we must stick to sound science. Obviously, that raises questions about how sound the science is and whose science it is. I caution the hon. Member for South Holland and The Deepings in appealing to the emotions of people in coastal communities by saying, XWe will not let you down." The fact is that we will let them down if we do not stick to the sound science because they will end up with no fisheries for ever. If difficult decisions need to be taken, it is important that politicians are tough, strong and robust enough to see them through.
	Much of the science has to be questioned. Serious and genuine arguments are being put forward by the industry to counter the science. Questions inevitably arise about the science itself. The science is not an unquestionable pronouncement of God. We must consider who is producing it and how sound it is. If it is based on a balance of probability using projections, who is doing the assessment, is it up to date, and are all the factors taken into account? The hon. Member for Banff and Buchan (Mr. Salmond) gave alternative figures that challenged the science on the spawning stock biomass in a number of important fisheries. In fisheries in area VII—the western approaches—the hake recovery programme is showing a decrease, admittedly small, in mortality and an increase in the spawning stock biomass. Most of the science on cod in area VII comes from area VIId, where conditions are closer to those in the North sea, and does not take proper account of the state of cod in the western approaches and the Celtic sea. Some of those issues must be considered before making hard and fast decisions about managing and setting quotas for important species in those areas.

Austin Mitchell: I do not want to disturb the Liberal policy of squaring every circle, but is the hon. Gentleman saying that we should trust the scientists except in area VII?

Andrew George: No, I have already made my view clear. I accept the point made by the hon. Member for Banff and Buchan and a number of arguments by my hon. Friends who will speak later from a Scottish and Shetland perspective. I am making a general point that the science needs to be properly and robustly challenged on scientific grounds, not on emotional or political grounds. I was giving the example of stocks in area VII—the western approaches—particularly hake, but cod and haddock as well, because the subject would not otherwise be raised in this debate. I am glad that the hon. Member for Great Grimsby (Mr. Mitchell) gave me an opportunity to highlight that. There are serious uncertainties about the science and current information raises many questions. I therefore urge the Minister, instead of making hard and fast decisions that will affect the fishing effort from 1 January 2003—after all, fish stocks do not recognise human calendars—to take a more cautious approach, roll the debate forward if necessary and keep a watching brief on critical fisheries. We would ultimately regret decisions that resulted in thousands of fishing jobs being lost overnight.

Ann Winterton: I am a little confused as to why the hon. Gentleman thinks that we will be able to make decisions to roll over the management of fisheries into the new year. He knows as well as anyone else that there is a cut-off date of 31 December and that Spain must be accommodated thereafter. The Commission makes the proposal, and the Minister only has 10 out of 87 votes in the Fisheries Council.

Andrew George: I have raised with Commissioner Fischler the issue of the six-mile and 12-mile limits. If they are not resolved, he has confirmed that there are ways of rolling forward the debate.
	I do not want to spend much more time on the issue, as we do not have long and I know that other Members wish to speak. We need to look at alternatives such as selective and sophisticated local measures. The Cornish Fish Producers Organisation has proposed the closure of two areas in the Trevose ground. We need reassurance that the scientific advice is adequate. If recovery programmes are to be effective, we must look carefully at proposals to invest in them. If lay-ups, closed seasons and closed areas are to achieve a recovery of stock, it would be unwise to decommission vessels. We should find ways of funding their tie-up for an agreed period so that when stocks recover they can continue fishing.
	The Minister has just left the Chamber, but I was just going to tell him that he is highly respected, resilient, sympathetic, sensitive and modest. Given that he was not born yesterday, he would wonder what all that flattery is leading to. It is this: can he go to the next Fisheries Council meeting and demonstrate not only knowledge, understanding, resilience, sensitivity and modesty, but passion? Once he has understood and taken on board the scientific issues and weighed the arguments about the balance of scientific evidence, will he fight for the fishermen? There have been stand-up rows between our Prime Minister and other Prime Ministers on other matters. Fisheries are of such importance to our country that I urge the Minister if necessary to engage the attention of the Prime Minister and other Ministers to ensure that the urgency of the situation is conveyed to European Ministers.

Elliot Morley: For the benefit of the House, may I point out that the Government are engaged at all levels? Indeed, this week, a representative from No. 10, a member of the Prime Minister's personal office, met me for a long briefing on where we are with these issues, our priorities and what we want to do. The hon. Gentleman should not think that we are not engaged with every single level of Government in every single region of the country.

Andrew George: That is reassuring, but we would like public evidence of that engagement.
	Finally, we can take decisions in haste, but we would repent at leisure, which is why I urge the Minister to consider our amendment carefully. If many thousands of people were made jobless in the manufacturing sector because of the closure of a factory, special taskforces would be set up, public money would be invested and urgent plans developed to deal with the problems. The fisheries problem is of equal severity, and I hope that the Minister will take on board the seriousness of the issue, given his clear and intricate knowledge of the subject.

Mr. Deputy Speaker: Before I call the next speaker, a large number of hon. Members are seeking to catch my eye. Unless contributions are considerably briefer, some Members will be disappointed.

Lawrie Quinn: I shall try to keep my remarks as brief as possible, Mr. Deputy Speaker, and shall try to represent as best I can the interests of the fishing communities of Scarborough and Whitby. The hon. Member for St. Ives (Andrew George) and I both entered the House in 1997. Over the years, it has been a great pleasure to work together in the spirit of partnership that he has demonstrated this afternoon, and I shall take up where he left off.
	From my perspective on the Government Benches, the Minister was right to draw attention to the interest and support coming from the highest levels of the Government. I hope that, through the Minister's work in future discussions at European level, we will be able to demonstrate to our fishing communities how seriously the Government take the issues facing the industry, as evidenced by the industry taskforce, which has been so important in my part of the world when the loss of other jobs has been threatened.
	The fishing industry is linked to Scarborough and Whitby almost by an umbilical cord, and I want to consider some of the socio-economic effects of the current proposals on the people whom I represent. Earlier today, on behalf of the fishing community based in Whitby, I drew attention to the representations that I have received from Mr. Arnold Locker, a Whitby fisherman and the current chairman of the National Federation of Fishermen's Organisations. I understand that Arnold, with his colleagues from the NFFO, will be visiting the Minister early next week.
	I take this opportunity, on behalf of colleagues from the North sea ports, to thank the Minister for the briefing that he is arranging for us next week. I, and the others who attend, will make the most of that. I was pleased to hear that hon. Members from all parts of the House will attend. That is as it should be; we should all listen and try to work on behalf of the communities that we represent.
	At Question Time today, I raised the issue of enforcement. Mr. Locker asked me to convey to the House a clear message about the type of enforcement to which his boats, like the boats of most of the Yorkshire fishery, are subject. He tells me that the boats may be boarded three or four times a week, when they are out there trying to earn their living. Mr. Locker wants the Minister to argue as strongly as possible in future weeks for that approach to be replicated across Europe.
	I was pleased to hear from Mr. Locker that he wanted more robust science— science that was more effectively supported, and would be more meaningful than what we have heard in recent years. Having spoken to the fishermen in Scarborough and Whitby over a number of years, I was gratified to hear such clear and unambiguous support for science from such an important leader of the industry. I hope that the Minister will be able to build on that in his discussions with the NFFO next week.
	I mentioned the impact on local communities. The people who live in the old town of Scarborough—the bottom-enders—have lived in that community and gained a livelihood from fishing for generations. The hon. Member for South Holland and The Deepings (Mr. Hayes) referred to the number of deep-sea fishing vessels based in Scarborough and Whitby. I believe he said that there were four, but he did not mention the fact that over the years there has been a transfer of deep-sea vessels from the ports of Scarborough, Whitby and the rest of the North sea coast to the north-east of Scotland, as I am sure the hon. Member for Banff and Buchan (Mr. Salmond) would acknowledge.
	Although the reference to the importance of the distinction between the English fishery and the Scottish fishery was dismissed, there is a strong historic link between my communities and those north-east ports. I say that in a spirit of solidarity, as we recognise that for every person involved in the fishing industry in England, there are probably three or more people working in the fishing industry in Scotland. We view the problem from a united community perspective.
	The people of the old town in Scarborough and the fishing communities of Whitby are living on their nerves. They are so frightened. They are under pressure from the banks and from the people who try to help them with loans. There is a real sense that our communities are on the edge of a precipice. I hope that in his discussions with other members of the Government, the Minister will have regard to the serious psychological impact of the present situation on those communities. I hope that the public services will take account of the stress and trauma that relatively small but tightly knit communities such as mine are undergoing, and ensure that the appropriate support is available.
	I take this opportunity to celebrate with the House the wonderful work done by organisations such as the Seafarers Mission and the fishermen's missions throughout the country. They are supporting fishing communities through extremely difficult times. In debates such as this it is traditional for the Minister to mention all the people who are, unfortunately, lost at sea as a result of their efforts to harvest the sea; perhaps he will do so in his concluding remarks. It is worth noting that the Whitby lifeboat has now celebrated 200 years of existence. That is an indication of how tightly knit that community is. We want to see fishing as a vibrant, sustainable way of making a living, and we want people to be able to go forward with the hope of future prosperity.
	As the Minister knows, there was a small sign of hope for Whitby with the opening of the fishermen's apprentice school at the beginning of October. He has said that he will make every effort to visit the school in the new year, to see the work that is being done there. I can report to the House, including my hon. Friend, that people from as far afield as North Shields and further down towards Grimsby are showing great interest in the school as a centre of excellence. I hope that the skills and techniques being taught in that important facility will start to address in an English context some of the concerns highlighted by my hon. Friend the Member for Aberdeen, Central (Mr. Doran) when he said that there was a drift of skills away from the industry. The school is a vital sign that the industry will not roll over and die without putting up a strong fight.
	The hon. Member for St. Ives called for a fighting spirit. The families who fish, work and live along the coast of Yorkshire have a message for the House about the living that they earn from the North sea. They not only want the Minister to do his best for them—they know that from this Minister, they do get the best, because of what he has done for their industry—but they want a realistic approach that delivers for future generations. That is how they want me to express their views to the House today. After today's debate, we want to see some punches thrown by our fisheries Minister on behalf of the United Kingdom fishery—although we do not expect him to emulate the manner of the Deputy Prime Minister when he visited a certain north Wales town. We want to hear about a real fight—but not necessarily with shouting—for a sustainable future for our communities.
	I have three questions for the Minister, which I hope he will be able to deal with in his closing remarks. First, diversification into the prawn fishery has been extremely important for boats that go out of Whitby, and we discussed earlier the important issue of by-catches. Will the Minister consider making representations or giving some confirmation for fishermen who have diversified about the dispensation for the by-catch? Will there be an opportunity to consider making even more effort with the prawn fishery?

Vera Baird: As my hon. Friend well knows, I represent the constituency immediately to the north of Scarborough and Whitby. Redcar has a very tiny fishing industry comprising small boats. In the scale of things—but I suppose that that is a silly word to use in a fishing debate; I shall start again. In terms of content, a minute quantity of cod is involved, and those in the industry now fear two things. The first is that they will not be able to catch cod any more, and the second is that their second catch, which consists of prawns but inevitably includes a small by-catch of cod, will also be stopped or severely restricted because of that minute—and, I would suggest, pretty inconsequential—by-catch. Can the Minister do anything to reassure them that they will not have to sustain a double collapse of their current means of living?

Lawrie Quinn: I am grateful for that intervention. My hon. and learned Friend put the argument far more succinctly than I could—but I am a mere simple engineer, whereas she obviously really is learned as well as honourable.

Elliot Morley: I am grateful to my hon. Friend for giving way. I might be able to help both him and my hon. and learned Friend the Member for Redcar (Vera Baird). We have obviously been considering take-up and quotas in different parts of our fishery. The Thames inshore fleet accounts for only about 2 per cent. of the cod quota. In that respect, referring back to my comments about low impact sustainable fisheries, I want to see whether I can make special arrangements for those sectors, and I shall try to do so.

Lawrie Quinn: I am sure that all fisherman in north-east England will be grateful to hear that response so swiftly.
	Secondly, I have a question about the situation of the netsmen and the people who go for salmon. The Minister and his officials have been helpful in terms of dialogue and the bridge that I have tried to build for licence holders and netsmen based in Whitby. As a result, considerable progress has been made in getting a sustainable result for this important industry. Will he maintain a strong personal interest in how that situation evolves, recognising that the fishermen concerned are also involved in the shellfish fishery? Will he also have regard to opportunities and development support work in marketing that important fishery?
	I know that the Minister's officials have looked into the important contribution that species such as the velvet crab might make. That product is very marketable, especially in the Iberian sector. On the basis that most of the shellfish landed at the port of Whitby seem to be placed in refrigerated lorries and sent across the country to the fish markets of Paris and Barcelona, a strong contribution could be made in relation to my demand that the fishing industry and community be kept tightly knit together in Whitby. I hope that the Minister will consider that important point.
	Finally, there are parallels between the fishing industry and the other major heavy production industries in the economy. The Minister will have recognised in his community of Scunthorpe the changes and the problems that the steel industry has faced. He knows that my background is in the railway industry, and he is aware of the changes that have occurred in transport engineering in the city of York and the north Yorkshire area. I am sure that he knows about the impact of that great change on coal mining communities. Will he use his best efforts to ensure that there is greater engagement, especially in the English regional development agencies, in recognition of the fact that those communities are on a knife edge? They are waiting for something to happen. They think that it will be awful; indeed, many Members here share their fears. Those communities need support and assistance from the Government to see them through some dark days. I hope that the Minister will make clear representations to Commissioner Fischler, and have regard to the fact that if the provision of social support for fishing communities is good enough for other European countries, we certainly want to see it in the United Kingdom—in Yorkshire, and in Scarborough and Whitby.

Ann Winterton: This debate is being held at a critical time for the future of the United Kingdom fishing industry, which has perhaps finally realised that it is facing a cliff face. Those in the industry say that the matter is now becoming political and has nothing to do with common sense. In the few words that I am about to say, I hope that I can show them why they are right, how the matter is political and how that will adversely affect their future.
	To understand the future, we need to look at the past. Thirty-one years ago, the House of Commons was misled during debates in which it was suggested that we were entering what was portrayed as a common market. Members of Parliament were assured that our fishing industry was safe and that our fishermen were protected by the British veto, when the true situation was quite the reverse. Seventeen years ago, the House of Commons was misled once again. During debates on the accession of Spain and Portugal, we were led to believe that the 1983 agreement sharing the stocks among member states was the common fisheries policy that we had signed up for. Spain was portrayed as having been successfully accommodated in the common fisheries policy with no future threat to our national fleet.
	For the past 31 years—and, indeed, in today's debate—there has been little mention of the acquis communautaire that we originally accepted on taking up our membership, as do all new entrant countries to what is now called the European Union. The management system of 1983, which consisted of quota cuts and decommissioning, has not provided one successful fishery. Speaker after speaker has seconded that view. The real aim of that system was to enable the integration of the individual fishing fleets of the member states into a single European fleet operating in the already declared and accepted single European Union pond. If the industry does not understand that that is the core of the problem, no one will be able to prevent the eradication that will come.
	The maritime cake comprises the available resources from all member states—the waters in their exclusive fishing zones plus any temporary agreements negotiated with third countries. Our nation, the United Kingdom, contributed the largest proportion to that maritime cake. It is surely obvious that, as other nations join, they will look to our slice and to United Kingdom waters for their equal share. The same applies when time-limited agreements with third countries are not renewed and the participating countries require a bigger slice of remaining resources. I hasten to add that that is always inevitably to the detriment of the United Kingdom. After all, the one basic principle of the common fisheries policy under the acquis communautaire is to provide
	XAn equitable standard of living for the population which depends on fishing for its livelihood."
	The cod situation has created the beneficial crisis needed to ensure that the Commission can achieve that goal. The cod and hake recovery programme containing the details of the new management system will be adopted: let there be no doubts or misunderstandings about that. Faced with a choice between total closure and greatly reduced effort, Ministers will accept the latter.
	As John Farnell, Fisheries Minister in the Scottish Parliament, recently said to that Administration's Rural Development Committee,
	XThe main driver for reduction of the fleet"—

Alex Salmond: Will the hon. Lady give way?

Ann Winterton: Let me finish.

Several hon. Members: rose—

Ann Winterton: If hon. Members sat quietly and listened—[Hon. Members: XWhat was his name?"] I intend to repeat not his name but his words. At least, I shall begin to repeat what he said. If hon. Members disagree with his views, they can let the House know that.

Alex Salmond: On a point of order, Madam Deputy Speaker. Hon. Members should know that Mr. Farnell is a European Commission official, not a Fisheries Minister in the Scottish Parliament.

Ann Winterton: I beg the House's pardon if I am mistaken. I slipped up when reading my notes and I apologise for that. However, John Farnell's words constitute the vital point. He said:
	XThe main driver for reduction of the fleet will no longer be Community legislation with targets for capacity to be achieved at the end of a given time; rather, it will be the economic consequences of having to live with fishing effort limits."
	He continued:
	XWe believe that much of the fleet will decide to move out of fishing because it will be difficult for vessels to remain profitable with some of the fishing effort limits that might be necessary for conservation."
	That majority will be the British, mainly the Scots. A trail of deprivation and social problems will ensue in our coastal communities.
	It sickens me to the core to think that those years of deception, as European Union integration drove quietly and surreptitiously onwards, will result in the eradication of a way of life and of skills built up and passed down from generation to generation.
	Before anyone asserts that we are protected by relative stability, let me emphasise the genuine difference between the principle and the application keys that were determined under it. Why do people imagine that successive British Governments signed designation orders for every member state, including Austria and Luxembourg, allowing them to catch all species outside the 12-mile limit? How will relative stability protect vessels with different quota allocations for cod, haddock or whiting when the Commission's proposal prevents any vessel that has exhausted the days allocated for cod from going to sea to catch other species, even if some of the quota remains?
	John Farnell informed the Rural Development Committee of the Scottish Parliament that allocation keys should be reviewed every five years,
	Xin order to ensure that they correspond to real fishing interests, as opposed to interests on paper".
	The quota that British vessels were given in 1983 does not reflect the current structure of the fleet.
	I am delighted that the important issue of the food source has been raised. The food chain continues to be broken by industrial fishing. Many people do not know that it takes 4 kg of fish to produce 1 kg of fish meal pellets. It takes 2 kg of pellets for a salmon to grow 1 kg in weight. Raising a farmed salmon that weighs 2 kg requires 16 kg of industrial species. Cod also rely on that food to survive in the wild. They are therefore deprived of the feed that they need to survive, grow and reproduce. If there is no food for the fish, is it surprising that they move to areas where they can find sustenance? After all, as has been said many times, the sea has no boundaries.
	What do our fishermen face in January 2003? The relevant area covers almost the whole UK 200-mile limit. Fishermen face a restriction on their days at sea in the form of kilowatt days, a multiple of time at sea and engine size. Vessels that have no record of catching cod or hake will have to discard every single fish of those species that they find in their nets.
	When days at sea are used up, the vessel will not be allowed to put to sea again in the relevant area. Any reduction in time at sea will destroy the whole white fish fleets in areas such as Shetland, Peterhead and the north-east, and the hake fleets from the south-west.
	The Advisory Committee for Fisheries Management has proposed a complete ban on landing cod, haddock and whiting while promoting an increase in the total allowable catch for saithe or coley. Under the current relative stability keys for the UK, the share of the North sea quota is 47 per cent. of cod, 78 per cent. of haddock and 53 per cent. of whiting, but 17 per cent. of saithe. Most of the latter falls to France and Germany.
	It is ironic that British fishermen have claimed for more than five years that the scientific advice on, and subsequent TAC for, saithe is not in line with what they were catching and discarding. Yet the scientists have decided to increase their assessment by more than 30 per cent. only now, when most British vessels will be tied up and unable to benefit from it. That provides more evidence, if it were needed, that British vessels are to be forced out of business to save the rest of the European fleet.
	The only realistic answer is for the UK Parliament to assert its undoubted authority and restore fisheries policy to national control. Some of those who are listening may believe that that policy is extreme. A Liberal Democrat Member described it in precisely those terms on South West Television. However, in the early 1990s, a fishermen's leader from Senegal visited the south-west. He asked for help to prevent the CFP from destroying the lives of many artisanal fishermen who were run down in their open pirogues at night by vessels from the European Union that were permitted to fish Senegal's waters through a third country agreement.
	An article in XClassic Boat" magazine in September stated that in 2000, 300 fishermen from Mauritania were drowned after the European boats sank their indigenous craft, often at night. Those responsible were fined a mere #3,500 and, in some circumstances, let off scot-free.
	I therefore emphasise to Liberal Democrat Members that continuing to support the CFP in any form is to support an extreme regime that destroys fish stocks and the livelihoods of our fishermen. It has destroyed the lives of fishermen from the west African states that I mentioned.
	Taking extreme action now is the only way in which to halt the extreme predicament of fishermen. They are staring disaster in the face because of the eradication of the white fish sector in the north-east and Shetland. The predicament is caused by the EU's pressing need to accommodate the Spanish fleet, which has waited 16 years for equal access to the common resource under the terms of its accession treaty. Other countries are waiting to join in 2004. Poland in particular has huge fisheries interests.
	The way forward, if we had the political will, is to stop the impending disaster in its tracks by doing what the hon. Member for Great Grimsby (Mr. Mitchell) attempted in 1996. I am glad that he is in his place today. He promoted a Bill to introduce national control. One of its sponsors was the current Leader of the Opposition, who was present earlier to listen to part of the debate.
	The Fisheries Limits (Amendment) Bill sought to amend the European Communities Act 1972. European legislation can be incorporated in UK law only through that Act. Are the Government prepared to take that action? It would not mean that we had to leave the European Union.

Austin Mitchell: I am grateful to the hon. Lady for giving way, although she might not like the reason for my intervention. I accept her lavish praise for my 1996 Bill—it was a brilliant Bill—but I must remind her that it received practically no support from the Conservative Government at the time.

Ann Winterton: The hon. Gentleman makes a fair point, but that was then. We are now facing the meltdown of the United Kingdom's fisheries. The situation is so dire that politicians who are elected to the House—those in Government in particular; after all, it is they who propose measures, not Back-Bench Members—must take action. I hope that he will join me in encouraging his Government to follow the excellent example that he set many years ago, when he had the foresight to know what needed to be done.
	I ask again: are the Government prepared to take the action that I have outlined? Would the other political parties in the House support such a move? I have no hesitation in saying that the Liberal Democrats would not, because their declared policy is unequivocal support for further European integration. [Interruption.] It is. That is well known, and no Liberal Democrat Member has got up to deny it.

Alistair Carmichael: We are hoping that the hon. Lady will sit down.

Ann Winterton: I have given way to interventions, but I shall be as quick as I can so that the hon. Gentleman can speak.
	If we are not prepared to act in the best interests of our country, we relinquish our responsibilities to our constituents. Those hon. Members who represent coastal constituencies, in particular, will need to think carefully about this. If they are honest, they should tell their constituents that they support the unelected European Commission having the control and management of this vital resource—a resource that, by Act of Parliament and under international law, belongs to the British people.
	The common fisheries policy has a track record of producing social and environmental disaster of unbelievable proportions in United Kingdom coastal communities. Those who wish this policy to continue in any form have already decided that the interests of European Union integration come before the interests of the United Kingdom. I am one of those who believe that the interests of our country and its people are paramount, and we have one last chance to save the British fishing industry. I hope that we do not fail it.
	Several hon. Members rose—

Madam Deputy Speaker: Order. Clearly, a considerable number of right hon. and hon. Members want to catch my eye. I therefore urge them to make shorter speeches.

Austin Mitchell: I do not think we have ever had a fisheries debate that has been surrounded by such an air of gloom, particularly from the fishing organisations. The DEFRA officials in the Box have not even smiled once during it, so I take it that the situation is fairly serious. I have been worried that the crisis has been hyped up by the Commission as a justification for more draconian changes to the common fisheries policy. I was not going to voice that suspicion, because I want to advance my career in the Labour party. My hon. Friend the Minister has, however, given us his Xless Eurosceptic than thou" peroration. I accept that there is pleasure to be gained from jumping on the guilt scars and the Heath complexes of the Conservatives, who are so embarrassed by the situation that they have created that they have not even bothered to attend this afternoon's debate, in contrast with every other party.
	It is fair to recognise that we are in this crisis largely because of the common fisheries policy. A policy that is based on equal access to a common resource cannot provide for effective conservation in a way that a nation state controlling its own waters—and making swap arrangements with other countries on that basis—can do. In Europe, politics is more important than conservation. There has been a tendency to give everyone a catch, to trade catches, to make room for incoming states such as Spain, and to dole out catches by means of quotas, which is an inherently bad means of conservation. Those faults are implicit in the policy and it would be unreasonable not to recognise that.
	If the nation that contributes two thirds of the stocks to the so-called common market pool—which once had the richest fishing grounds in Europe and which needs a healthy fishing industry and healthy fishing communities—has to accept the biggest cuts in its efforts and its fleets, that outcome will be totally unacceptable to the House. That will be compounded if we maintain for too long the current policy of accepting only minimal grants from Europe. Other fishing industries have done far better out of grants from the common fisheries policy than we have, partly because of the Fontainebleau agreement, which means that the Treasury does not want to make its contribution. It would be unreasonable to see other industries financed to take the stocks—when they build up—that our industry cannot because it has not been adequately financed. We need to make that point to the Government.
	I have every faith in my hon. Friend; he has been an excellent Minister. He has done well for the fishing industry and consulted it closely. He has to build up coalitions in Europe, however, and we cannot therefore expect pristine clarion declarations from him. It is fair to point out, however, that fishing organisations have questioned the science, and I believe that they should do so. They have pointed out that the measures make no allowance for the fact that fishing effort has been falling while the stock biomass has been increasing, and that there has been no time to assess the new measures involving mesh sizes, and fleet reductions produced by decommissioning, particularly in Denmark. They also point out that the advice can be contradicted in some areas—perhaps only in area VII, although I have heard of this in other areas, too—by the practical experience of the fishermen.
	It is fair to point out that the advice from the scientists is tentative; it is not absolute. I shall quote them:
	XThis is the first step in establishing linkage.
	It is too early to take existing recovery measures into account.
	The numerical veracity of linkage is not endorsed.
	This is a new untested mixed fishery model.
	The calculations are not validated."
	If we were to allow the scientists to produce a ban—particularly on North sea cod—we would be making a serious mistake.
	It would be ludicrous if we did not ban industrial fishing in this situation. The hon. Member for Congleton (Ann Winterton) made the point earlier that this is the equivalent of killing eight cows to produce one genetically modified cow. That is the feeding ratio of fish caught in industrial fishing to farmed fish. The industry could not accept a situation in which draconian cuts were made, but industrial fishing carried on. There is always a by-catch, a catch of immature, juvenile fish that will grow up, and I think that we have to have that.
	There is a case, too, for postponing the advent of Spain in the system. I know that it has a legal right to join, but it is going to want to establish a track record. It is unrealistic to expect that it will not fish in these areas. If it establishes a track record, there will be by-catches and discards, and it will have to put back species that it is not allowed to catch—that is, most of them. We cannot afford that further damage to the stocks.
	It is right that the regional advisory committees, which are a very tentative part of the Commission's proposals, should, in fact, be regional management councils. That is what the industry wanted when it adopted that measure as a means of giving the stakeholders, the fishermen, a say—in fact, giving them management and control—in the catching in their area. We must beef up those committees to that level very quickly, because only they can apply the specific measures that specific areas need. The National Federation of Fishermen's Organisations has said that it is prepared to talk about the targeted, special measures that are needed—indeed, it should talk about them. Those measures would be a far better way of dealing with this situation than an outright ban. The NFFO lists the following suggestions:
	XTargeted decommissioning
	Closed seasons
	Closed spawning areas
	Closed nursery areas
	Funded voluntary tie-ups
	More selective fishing gear".
	I would add a one-net rule to that list. Those are all approaches that we need to embark on in this crisis.
	I come to days at sea. I fought alongside my hon. Friend the Minister—I was his bag carrier, for which he gave me the valiant service medal, but not the job as his parliamentary private secretary that I was looking for—when the Conservative Government proposed the days at sea limitation. The NFFO is still strongly and strenuously opposed. In fact, it destroyed days at sea with its appeal to Europe.
	Days at sea limits, or time limits on fishing, still have a problem of intellectual consistency, although that is par for the course on this side of the House: having opposed it, can we now accept it? I am coming round to the view that, because we would limit the time spent fishing, which is crucial, we could consider it on two grounds. First, the benefit of being closer to the stocks than competitors, if we receive it, is substantial; secondly, the lying-up periods, tying-up periods and non-fishing periods are financed by Europe or the Government—they have to be. The industry is teetering on the verge of bankruptcy in many cases, and it is unreasonable to force it to accept a limit on effort without financial compensation.
	My hon. Friend the Member for Scarborough and Whitby (Lawrie Quinn) made a point about discards. When we saw the Commission's director of conservation—if I had that title, I would commit suicide—he told us that the Norwegian system of requiring all discards to be taken back to port is not working, but there is a case for it that we should consider. If all discards had to be brought in to be used for fish-meal or to be sold for whatever purposes, provided that the minimum landing rules are changed, we would know exactly what was going on, and we certainly need to.
	That point brings me back to where I started. My hon. Friend the Minister will fight for the British fishing industry—I have every confidence in his doing so—and Labour Members are not here to negotiate the death of the British fishing industry. The World Wildlife Fund has produced an important set of proposals on what it calls investment in fishing, and it is quite right. How do we finance a fishing industry from here, where it is going to contract and there has to be decommissioning? Those matters should be handled fairly between Scotland and England, not by the Minister being left to scratch round in DEFRA's back pocket for whatever money is left over to match the #25 million provided in Scotland.
	We must help to finance that managed decline and curtailment of effort to the point at which we get sustainable stocks and sustainable fishing, which will be the reward for the conservation measures that we are being asked to accept. We will accept them, if there is a future for fishing and if the Government or the Community—I am not bothered which—invest in the industry.
	There must be investment in fishing so that it can come through from where we are now—the prelude to further decline—to the point we shall reach if and when those conservation measures work.

Alex Salmond: I was watching television this morning and I saw the harrowing pictures from Galicia of the oil spill and the resulting damage to the environment, wildlife and fishing communities. Perhaps it has been caused by human greed in terms of single-hull tankers, but it is a tragedy none the less—an environmental and natural disaster.
	I thought to myself how much more of a tragedy it would be if fishing communities here had visited on them an unnecessary disaster, not one resulting from an accident or from the environment. The more I consider the issue, the more convinced I am that any panic measure taken by the European Commission this December would be unnecessary and wrong. It would visit extreme suffering on many communities in pursuit of a totally unworkable policy and conditions not borne out by the science.
	A few days ago, the Minister accused me of attacking the science—I wish he had not—as if the science were read. I was not attacking the science; I was attacking the conclusions drawn by the International Council for the Exploration of the Sea from the scientific research that we have in front of us. The Minister himself, as has been pointed out twice in the debate, reserves himself the right, correctly in my view, to question the ICES recommendation that 1 million tonnes of industrial fish can be swept out of the North sea, including 50,000 tonnes of human consumption by-catch, while a human consumption fishery is closed down. He questions ICES on that matter, so the rest of us are entitled to consider the ICES report and the reality of what is in the science rather than the panicky pronouncements and manipulations that we see in so many of the comments from Commissioner Fischler and elsewhere.
	The reality is that the figures show that the haddock spawning biomass, which, as the Minister knows, is by far the most important thing, is the highest since 1971. The spawning stock biomass for saithe is the highest since 1976, the whiting spawning stock is the largest since 1991 and everyone knows that prawn stocks are extremely robust. All that is in the figures.
	Cod stocks are extremely low and extremely vulnerable, but even cod stocks have increased by 27 per cent. on the estimates in the figures compared with last year's total. Furthermore, all the figures that I have read out to the House—[Interruption.] The Minister looks at his officials, but I have the figures here and I can easily read them out. He does not need his officials when I am here. If he so wishes, I can read out the spawning stock biomass figures; believe me, they are correct.
	The figures—the estimates—that I have read out refer to the largest spawning stock biomass for a range of white fisheries and, even from a very low level, there is a recovery in the cod stock biomass. However, all those estimates take account of the same effort this year as last. That is the underlying assumption in the scientific advice, but we all know that there was not the same effort last year as this. Why not? Because 20 per cent. of the Scottish fleet is no more—it has been decommissioned. The Scottish fleet is also now fishing with 110 mm nets with square mesh panels.
	Incidentally, the #25 million package already referred to was for not just the decommissioning scheme, but #1 million went to research involving scientists and fishermen. We have the results, which show the escape of marketable haddock from 110 mm nets as 50 per cent. and that of marketable whiting as 70 per cent. We know that, as a direct result, the whiting and haddock quota will not be fished this year, not because there are no haddock and whiting in the sea, as they are there aplenty, but because there are very few discards of those marketable fish in the Scottish sector of the North sea as a result of the technical measures introduced by the Scottish fleet.
	My good friend the hon. Member for Scarborough and Whitby (Lawrie Quinn) made some interesting remarks. I am tempted to say that he said he wants to join us, although he was not making a territorial demand. That is my understanding, but he should remember, of course, that if he did so his fleet would be fishing with 110 mm nets with square mesh panels, as opposed to those in waters south of Newcastle where, remarkably, there are small cod and people are fishing with 80 mm nets. [Hon. Members: X120 mm."] In Norwegian waters, 120 mm nets are used, but 80 mm fishing is allowed, as the Minister well knows, south of Newcastle. The reality is that serious conservation measures have already been taken—conservation measures that he and I have argued for over many years. However, somehow and fantastically, they have not been included in the scientific assessment presented to us as the solution when stocks, or at least the biomass, are expanding. Somehow, the solution is to close the fishery. That is an unbelievable and lunatic recommendation from the European Commission and any serious analysis of the science would come to exactly the same conclusion.
	Why is that important? It is important because no one will be to blame if we allow people to say, XIt is a shame about our fishing communities—a great tragedy—but there are no fish in the sea." We could all blame each other for the various stances that we have taken in politics over the past 20 years: people might blame the fishermen and the processors, the fishermen might blame the processors, the east coast might blame the west, Scotland might blame England and everybody might blame Spain. None the less, nobody would be essentially to blame because nothing can be done.
	The right hon. Member for Carrick, Cumnock and Doon Valley (Mr. Foulkes), who is one of the few Members who is more loyal now than when he was a member of the Government, illustrated that point by saying, XNothing can be done. What hope is there?" Read the figures: the reality is that plenty can be done. If it is not done, the people who live around the coastline of Scotland and elsewhere will want to know why.

Michael Connarty: I am very interested in the points that the hon. Gentleman has made and I hope that he makes his information available or tells us where it is available. Is there not a contradiction? The Scottish Fishermen's Federation says that
	Xthere is a tendency to 'high grading' (landing only the most valuable fish) in cod and associated fisheries . . . This will lead to excessive discarding and will increase mortality beyond the levels foreseen by the TAC."
	However, the hon. Gentleman seems to be saying that that is not happening in Scotland. Why has the SFF alerted us to this fact in its own brief?

Alex Salmond: What is happening in Scotland is this: because of the move to a large mesh and square-mesh panel, there are huge escapes of haddock and whiting. Haddock and whiting are smaller than cod and are no longer under pressure, but in any event using a high mesh—110 mm in Scottish waters, or 120 in regional waters—will mean a much more environmentally satisfactory fishery.
	The Scottish fleet's transfer to the higher mesh has caused it some grief because the higher mesh allows many fish to escape, but that sacrifice—that conservation measure—was not taken into account in the Commission's calculation. There is no argument: according to the ICES advice, there was no time for assessment of the impact of the measures taken.

Frank Doran: There is concern about the way in which these measures are being used out at sea. It is simple enough to get around technical measures that have been quite properly implemented in Scotland. A fisherman told me recently that square mesh panels are at the top of nets because fish swim upwards, and that if the net is turned the other way up they cannot get out. I do not know whether the allegations are true, but when suspicions and problems are floating around in the industry even more caution is needed.

Alex Salmond: If the technical measures were not working, there would not have been the 50 per cent. escape of haddock reported by the joint scientific body. Moreover, this year's haddock quota would have been fished. If the hon. Gentleman had spoken to fishermen, he would know that there is any amount of young haddock in the North sea. ICES confirms that. The quota has not been taken because the technical measures are working, and the same applies to whiting. There is no longer a threat to those species. The hon. Member for Great Grimsby (Mr. Mitchell), sitting directly behind the hon. Gentleman, is nodding vigorously. The hon. Gentleman should probably consult the chairman of the all-party fisheries committee before making any more hostile interventions.
	Let me now say something with which all will agree. For the first time, the Scottish Executive have this year published a full analysis of the impact of fishing as an industry on the Scottish coastline. I use the word Xindustry" deliberately. It is not just a question of the catchers or the processors, many of whom are my constituents and those of the hon. Member for Aberdeen, Central (Mr. Doran); it is a question of the whole infrastructure that the industry supports. I am thinking of all the industries associated with a fishing community—netmakers, ropemakers, joiners, electricians and harbour staff. The research tells us that not 20,000 or 25,000—as has been suggested in the past—but 40,000 people owe their employment to the Scottish fishing industry, directly or indirectly.

Angus Robertson: Will my hon. Friend confirm that those statistics show that Moray's fishing communities figure largely? A representative of the processing sector in Buckie wrote to me this morning saying:
	XFor prawns, all the land based jobs are completely reliant on our Scottish fishery . . . and there are no other feasible import supplies available; thus the processing industry would collapse."
	That is indeed a dire warning. Does my hon. Friend agree that we need more than just assurances from the Government—that we need delivery to prevent any such collapse?

Alex Salmond: My hon. Friend is right about the Moray fishing communities, which feature heavily on the list, as do my constituents and those of the hon. Member for Orkney and Shetland (Mr. Carmichael). As might be expected, those areas depend heavily on fishing.
	Perhaps the most surprising feature of the Scottish Executive's statistics is the information that while Fraserburgh is the most fishing-dependent community in Europe—55 per cent. of employment there depends on fishing—the second most dependent travel-to-work area is Annan, in the south-west of Scotland. The figures relate to the whole coastline of Scotland. Even Motherwell contains many fishing-dependent jobs. It should be understood that this is not just a matter for the north-east or for Shetland, but for the whole coastline and, indeed, for Yorkshire and parts of Northern Ireland. In many communities the concentration of fishing jobs is enormous. That is why we are desperate to convey the message that the industry should at last be treated as a political priority. It has never been treated in that way before, by Tory or by Labour Governments.
	Some of today's debate has been quite jocular. The Minister and I have known each other for a long time, and many Members here are veterans of fishing debates. The consequences of what we are discussing, however, go far beyond any badinage exchanged across the Chamber. The Minister speculated on the existence of a conspiracy theory in which fishermen and fishing communities believed. It is not necessary to have a crystal ball to find a conspiracy theory; it is necessary only to look at the background—at minutes and Scottish Office correspondence released last year under the 30-year rule. According to a Scottish Office paper,
	XIn a wider UK context of European policy, they"—
	the Scottish fishermen—
	Xmust be regarded as expendable."
	The hon. Member for Great Grimsby looks surprised, but that applied to negotiations that took place when Edward Heath was Tory Prime Minister.
	The same pattern of fishing interests being traded away has been repeated time and again over the past 30 years. However, I disagree with Members who say that it is all to do with the CFP, or to do with not being part of the CFP, or to do with national control or with zonal control. I think the underlying issue relates to the extent to which fishing is seen as a priority. Spain, within the CFP, regards fishing as a priority. If the fishermen are in trouble, they will hold up the European Council until hell freezes over, or engage in a variety of other techniques to save the fishermen. It is the same as what President Chirac does for his farmers. Norway, outside the CFP, makes fishing a major priority and negotiates, year after year, a firm deal with the other fishing countries. I think that what really matters is the underlying question of the extent to which fishing is seen as a priority.
	Such political arguments will not be the stuff of the next few weeks and months, which will prove vital for our fishing communities. I will not have an independent Scotland in the next few months. The Conservative party will not be able to withdraw from the CFP or from Europe over the next few months. The Liberals will not be able to have zonal management over the next few months. All we can do over the next few weeks and months is to ensure that the major part of our industry in Scotland will be allowed to survive.
	We point out in our amendment that many of the changes proposed for the CFP are quite positive, but academic. They will be entirely academic if there is no industry to benefit from them. That is why we must have from the Minister not just the indications he gave at the outset, but two absolute assurances. First, we need an assurance that fishing will not be traded away yet again in European negotiations, as it has been progressively over the last 30 years. Secondly, we need an assurance that the Prime Minister—who is not engaged mentally at present, given the reply that he gave to the hon. Member for Orkney and Shetland yesterday—will start to become engaged in this topic, as President Chirac would be engaged if French fishermen were currently under the cosh.
	It is simply not acceptable to the Scottish fishing industry for the Prime Minster to be banging the phones for George W. Bush and concentrating on the international situation, rather than banging the phones for the fishing industry in its hour of need. We want to hear from the fisheries Minister that at last, at this moment of total crisis, the fishing industry will be given the priority it deserves, and that every level of Government, including the Prime Minister, will ensure that a viable future is negotiated for our fishing communities, rather than another sell-out.

Alan Campbell: It is a pleasure to follow the hon. Member for Banff and Buchan (Mr. Salmond), and I certainly do not regard the jobs of fishermen in my constituency, or elsewhere, as expendable. Although there has been some light-hearted banter in the Chamber, this is a serious matter—indeed a critical one for people in our constituencies. We are talking not about fishing communities and glory days of the past—I, too, am a student of history, and I listened with interest to the comments from those on the Opposition Benches—but about the livelihoods of hundreds of people who go to sea or work onshore in our constituencies. That is why I welcome the Minister's inviting us to discuss these matters with him soon, and to access scientific advice. He will know that we are in regular contact with fishermen in our constituencies. They are a source of information, and we take that very seriously. We seek to give voice to their concerns in the Chamber, and that is what I intend to do.
	In turn, of course, the Minister is our strong voice in Europe, and he is widely acknowledged as offering a strong voice for the UK fishing industry, including the area of North Shields, which I represent. If the hon. Member for South Holland and The Deepings (Mr. Hayes) had ventured north of Hartlepool, the fishermen of North Shields would doubtless have told him that. However, the Minister will have to draw on all his strength and experience, because one gets the feeling that this is a critical period. A little over a year ago, we were debating in this Chamber the effect on cod fishing of the closure of areas of the North sea. What appeared then to be extremely draconian measures were accepted, albeit reluctantly, as necessary. Twelve months on, we are now told that matters are worse than that, and that in effect we are faced with the closure of the cod fishery. Even if that proves to be 80 per cent. true, rather than 100 per cent., for many people that will amount to much the same thing. I should point out that the fishermen in my constituency do not rely exclusively on cod for a living. Nevertheless, they tell me that they oppose, and worry about the effects of, a closure, which they consider a step too far.
	Perhaps naively, I considered last year's cod recovery programme as an unprecedented coming together of scientific advice and the experiences of fishermen, and I hoped that that would continue. It was a shock to many fishermen—and indeed to me—to find that that position is now diverging. Scientists are taking a much more radical position that is increasingly at variance with the views and the experience of many fishermen. In view of that divergence and the sense of near-crisis in the industry, we need cool heads. We need a rational assessment—as far as is possible—of the reality of the existing situation, and we need to ensure that we work through each of the available options.
	The fishermen whom I represent are concerned. They wonder why the cod recovery programme has so far not been allowed to take effect, and whether the evidence has been properly evaluated. They tell me that some of the evidence on which recent pronouncements were made may actually date from two years ago—before the measures that we debated were put in place. Of course, since then areas of the North sea have closed. I am told that cod catches are down by about 50 per cent. Some 170 boats from the UK fishing fleet, and 70 boats from the Danish fleet, have been decommissioned. We await the assessment of the impact of changes in mesh sizes, and the lessons learned from the Irish sea cod recovery programme.
	My understanding was that the plan was never intended to be a short-term fix. People talked about a period of four to five years, and many of the fishermen that I have talked to think that the plan needs to be in place for a decade.

Roy Beggs: Can the hon. Gentleman tell us how many Spanish fishing vessels have been decommissioned?

Alan Campbell: I am unable to give the hon. Gentleman that information, but I do know that my fishermen are not concerned about the Spanish accessing their area of the North sea. They are not worried greatly by that, because it does not happen often.
	Much was made in the previous speech about the cod spawning stock biomass, but fishermen tell me that evidence exists to suggest that it is in fact increasing. That is not to say that there is no problem, or that it is not at a very dangerous level. I am certainly not arguing that we should not take the scientific advice seriously. The fishermen whom I talk to are not saying that either, but what they do want is to ensure that we raise important questions before we take action that we may come to regret.
	We should appreciate that the science involved is an inexact one, and it deserves to be challenged. That also allows us to take a perhaps longer-term view. I do not want to appear flippant, but if we are told that lawns are going to disappear from English gardens in the next few decades, who is to say that cod will not disappear from the North sea because of environmental and climate change? It would be a sad irony indeed if we were to adopt these draconian measures, and if fishermen were to go out of business, only for cod stocks to fail to recover in the North sea.
	I said that fishermen in North Shields do not rely on cod for their livelihoods, but that does not mean that this issue does not matter to them. They rely heavily on prawns, and the provisional figures suggest that the news on that front is acceptable. Even if the changes do not amount to wholesale closure, any change in the cod regime in the North sea will affect the prawn fisheries that my fishermen rely on. It will exacerbate an existing trend—the divergence of effort towards the prawn fisheries. I listened to the comments suggesting that all seemed to be well with the prawn fisheries, and I hope that that is so, but I am told that the season started late this year, and that the prawns are smaller than might have been expected. I emphasise the point that the prawn fishery is not a bottomless pit. I trust my hon. Friend the Minister to ensure that he does everything that he can to protect that fishery.
	Various options have been suggested, including limiting effort. Let us not go down the route—either now or during the wider reform of policy—of a one-size-fits-all situation. We need to look at what works, and where it works. If we adopt a tie-up scheme or a decommissioning scheme for people who have had enough and want to leave the industry—I make this point as much for the Treasury's benefit as for the Minister's—the Treasury will eventually have to face up to the resulting cost. Either it will have to give moneys directly to the fishing industry, or pick up the cost afterwards.
	These are extremely difficult circumstances. None of the available options will be pointless, and none will come cheap, but we should consider them fully before taking a step too far.

Alistair Carmichael: I understand through the usual channels that if we all speak for five minutes, we might all be allowed to speak, so I shall try to limit my remarks. I agreed with a great deal of what the hon. Member for Banff and Buchan (Mr. Salmond) said, so I shall try not to go over the same ground.
	It is almost a cliché to say that there is a crisis in the Scottish fishing industry and the white fish fleet in particular. However, it is difficult to overstate the severe difficulties that it faces, as we have heard today. In the past 12 months, some 150 vessels have been removed from the Scottish white fish fleet through decommissioning, losses and sinking, transfers to the pelagic sector, and sales outwith the United Kingdom. This is the second year of the cod recovery plan, and, as others have said, the target of 30 per cent. year-on-year improvement in cod stocks was very nearly met last year when, according to ICES figures, there was a 27 per cent. improvement in the spawning stock biomass for cod.
	I do not wish to dwell on what was said by Conservative Members, but I have to say that I take issue with the hon. Member for Congleton (Ann Winterton). She suggested that those of us who promote reform of the common fisheries policy do so because we are prepared to be European before defending our industry. That is a misrepresentation of the situation.

Ann Winterton: That is not what I said.

Alistair Carmichael: The hon. Lady says that that is not what she said. I accept that, but it is what I understood her to say. In the previous two renegotiations of the CFP, which happened under a Conservative Government, we said that the policy would not work. History shows us to have been correct, and we are saying the same again now. Our belief about what is best for the fishing industry is shared by the Scottish Fishermen's Federation, the Shetland Fishermen's Association, Shetland Oceans Alliance and the Orkney Fisheries Association.
	I welcome the Minister's assurances that proper account will be taken of the experience with the larger mesh sizes, the square mesh panels and the painful decommissioning that we have gone through in Scotland. I merely observe that the fact that it has taken until now to get to the point at which the Minister says that he will take the matter to the European Commission tells us something about the process in which we are engaged. Surely any process that is truly scientific and objective would look for information, so why do we have to drag the Commission, kicking and screaming, to see the benefits of what we have done.
	I was in Brussels last week. I spoke to John Farnell who, unless I am more out of touch with Scottish politics than I thought, is not the Scottish fishing Minister. I also spoke to other EU officials. They were not encouraging. The Minister is not going to find it easy. I wish him well: there has been talk about the fire in the Minister's belly, but I hope that it is well stoked up when he argues the case for the Scottish industry. I shall give him a bottle of Highland Park whisky if he can pull it off.
	The right hon. Member for Carrick, Cumnock and Doon Valley (Mr. Foulkes) spoke about the need for hon. Members to argue for conservation in their constituencies. It is a pity that he is not in his place, as I regard that attitude as misguided and patronising. Fishermen in my constituency are well aware of the need for conservation. Their livelihoods, and the livelihoods of some 30 per cent. of the population of Shetland, depend on having fish stocks. That is what is at stake for us.
	My hon. Friend the Member for St. Ives (Andrew George) spoke about the need for rollover. There is some merit in that argument, but monitoring will present a difficulty. Again, I return to the need to get scientists out of their offices and off their research vessels, and onto commercial fishing vessels. That is where they will see the reality of the situation.
	Much has been said about industrial fishing, but time does not permit me to do more than add my weight to what the Minister said. The hon. Member for Banff and Buchan said that the important thing was not whether the CFP should be reformed or abolished, but the passion and significance that we attach to the fishing industry. The future viability of the whole community in Shetland depends on the Minister getting it right next month. For that reason, I want him to display passion and vigour in the negotiations, and in that way save our white fish fleet.

Bob Blizzard: I have attended nearly all the fisheries debates since I came to the House, as Lowestoft has always been an important fishing port. Records show that, until recently, about 10 per cent. of the fish landed in England was landed at Lowestoft. However, if things carry on as they are it will not be long before I shall have no special reason to come to these debates.
	A year ago, there were nine beam trawlers in Lowestoft, and an inshore fleet of about 40 vessels. That was a historic low, yet in August this year the beam trawler company, Colne Shipping, ceased fishing. All we have now is about 18 inshore vessels. The end of Colne's was the end of generations of fishing in Lowestoft, and we have no more deep-sea trawling any more. The subject is very emotive, and last August was a very depressing month in Lowestoft's history.
	Sad to say, it has taken the end of Colne's to make us all recognise what has happened. I fear that, even now, hon. Members still do not accept what is happening. Representatives of Colne's told me when the news was announced that they could not make fishing pay any more. They said that that was because they could not catch even the fish to which they had quota entitlement. Prices were poor, and the fuel costs incurred from vessels having to go to the Norwegian sector to try to catch the fish were too high.
	The company was supported by the Government. In February, my hon. Friend the Minister authorised a payment of #650,000 for the decommissioning of two vessels. That huge sum was more than any company in my constituency has ever received. The Government were right to award that money in a bid to support the company through a difficult time, but the money lasted only six months. That shows how costly it is to try to buy our way out of the problem.
	Was that good value for the taxpayer? The question is unavoidable. I supported the decommissioning award made to Colne's, and urged my hon. Friend the Minister to grant it. However, will the taxpayer consider paying #650,000 for six months to be a good deal?
	I have referred to the Lowestoft example as a way of showing that the CFP has failed. We all know that. It has certainly failed Lowestoft. All the meetings, debates and activity in Europe have left us without deep-sea fishing, and with only a small remnant of our inshore fleet. However, that means that reality has now taken a grip. People in Lowestoft remember being able to walk across the harbour by means of the fishing boats all docked side by side, but that was the problem: all those boats plundered too many fish for too long.
	The story of the CFP is simple. Every year in this debate, the scientific figures are produced to show that quotas must be cut. Understandably, fishermen claim that they will lose their jobs and politicians like me argue on behalf of their fishermen, but what happens? Each year, the issue is fudged. Each year, we get compromises, and then we pay the price.
	That is happening again this afternoon. People have claimed that that there is something wrong with the scientific advice and that we should just ease off a bit. I can understand that, but the lessons are clear. What has been remarkable in Lowestoft this year is what the fishermen have said to me. Inshore fishermen have told me that the scientists were Xright, horribly right". The representatives of Colne's told me, when the news was announced that the company would have to end its fishing interests, that we should have taken notice of the scientists all along, and that the problem started more than 30 years ago, before we ever got involved in the common fisheries policy.
	The lesson that fishermen in Lowestoft have learned is to stick to the science. I think that our Government try harder to do that than those of many other member states. We know the desperate state of the stocks; we can argue that this year some year classes are a little better than the previous one, but it is all way below the safe biological limits. Whatever figures the hon. Member for Banff and Buchan (Mr. Salmond) has, the scientists know that they are all below the safe biological limits. One year can be a bit better than the other but we are still in deep trouble.

Several hon. Members: rose—

Bob Blizzard: I will not give way.
	The first year that I was elected, fishermen told me that there were more plaice than the scientists thought. I went to see my hon. Friend the Minister, who sent the scientists out again. They came back saying that that was right and we increased the plaice quota. I wonder now whether that was a good thing to do—it was at the time, but now the plaice are in a diabolical state.
	If we want to conserve fish, we will have to take draconian measures for a long time, possibly for five years. Scientists tell me that the fleet will probably have to be reduced by half. On the other hand, we could give up altogether and just let the fishermen fish it out—that might be no worse than what we are doing because what we are doing is not very successful.
	Whatever we do, how do the fishermen survive? Will there be an industry left to catch anything once we have taken those draconian measures, assuming, of course, that there will not be an environmental problem that prevents recovery? It is very difficult. I have told the House how much it cost to keep the Lowestoft trawler fleet alive. I asked an inshore fisherman how much money he would need to help him because he cannot catch cod. He said #500 a month. That is not a lot but it adds up to #6,000 a year and #30,000 over five years for one fisherman on one boat. If we multiply that by 18 fishermen in Lowestoft, it comes to a lot of money to keep them going. I can understand people wanting financial support—I would like them to have it. However, we are talking about a lot of money and we would simply be tying up the same number of fishermen who will go out and catch the fish when it is all over. I think that decommissioning makes more sense than tying up. [Interruption.] I realise that I have been talking for six minutes, as I am reminded from a sedentary position, but there have been grosser abuses of parliamentary time this afternoon.
	We have been through a difficult period but, as I said earlier, I do not think that it has been caused by fishermen who carry out long-lining, which is a method of catching fish. Will my hon. Friend exempt the long-liners from whatever restrictions are imposed regarding cod, as I do not think that they devastate the stocks?
	We have been through this devastation before, 30 years ago when the herring disappeared and now they are back in our waters. Fishermen can catch herring, but they cannot get much for them—they tell me they get #20 for 10 stone. Could someone from the Department work with my local authority, using money from fisheries regeneration, to see whether we can do something about marketing herring? People in this country have forgotten about herring for generations. If we could get a price for herring, there would be a future for some of the fishermen.
	The common fisheries policy has failed and we are trying to reform it. The new policy looks very familiar because no one could think of anything very different to do. The biggest flaw is enforcement. There has always been cheating, if that is what we call it. As the quotas have become tighter and things have got more difficult for the fishermen, so the cheating has increased. Probably only half the amount of fish landed is recorded. In some European countries there are other layers as well. We have all been to places and seen the small fish; we have all seen evidence of illegal nets. The cheating in some other countries is worse than it is here, but I am told that we have started to catch up. Unless there is enforcement, there is no point in having a policy. Ministers such as ours can sit up all night at the meeting in December, but if the rules are broken nobody is better off. If we cannot enforce them, we might as well give up.
	The fish know no boundaries, and we must have a common approach. I do not have a great deal of faith that the approach will work but I wish my hon. Friend the Minister all the best for what will inevitably be an all-night session in December. We could not have a better representative, and I think that other Front Bench spokesmen are probably relieved that he is going and they are not.

Peter Duncan: Given the time that was available, it is regrettable that Opposition Members who represent substantial fishing communities have been restricted to three or four-minute speeches at the end of the debate. I want to make a few observations on some issues that relate to my constituency, which covers fishing communities in Kirkcudbright, Newton Stewart and the Machars. Indeed, some of my constituents have paid the ultimate price within the past couple of years in the pursuit of a commodity that some of us take for granted.
	I am concerned about the complacency that has been shown in this debate. The industry, especially in Scotland, takes sustainability immensely seriously. When one speaks to some of those business men—for that is indeed what they are—one finds that they are part of family businesses that have been established for many generations. Could any commercial entity have a greater concern about the sustainability of fish stocks than those family businesses? I come from one myself so I am well aware that sustainability means preparing for future generations.
	I am only too well aware that such family businesses have played their part during the past year. The decommissioning scheme was more than 100 per cent. oversubscribed in Scotland. A #25 million fund was available, but #50 million could have been paid out. There were 215 applications—a third of the fleet wanted to leave the industry. Those people have played their part.
	When I spoke to fishermen this week, they expressed frustration that no cognisance was being taken in the current review of what they had already delivered. The hon. Member for Banff and Buchan (Mr. Salmond) mentioned increased mesh sizes. No cognisance was taken of that; nor of the introduction of Xwindows" for the release of small stock. There can be no frustration greater than that of fishermen who know that there are problems and are doing what they can to address sustainability, while the Commission seems to take no account of what they are doing.
	The key point is that fishermen want to be involved in the process. They want to know what is going on, yet they feel excluded. Why has the two-volume report been available for two weeks, but has apparently not yet been provided to the Commission? Why are fishermen excluded from the negotiations? I can see no reason why fishermen's representatives could not attend as part of the delegations. That would do much to reassure fishing communities, which have sustainability at heart, that there is nothing to hide.
	I suspect that there is something to hide, however. For example, on the west coast of Scotland the historic deep-sea fishing grounds have been carved up in a backroom deal in which Scotland accounts for only 2 per cent. of the available catch, while 80 per cent. goes to Spain and the rest is carved up between Ireland and France—[Interruption.] I accept the Minister's correction: 80 per cent. goes to France and the rest is split between Ireland and Spain. It was a political stitch-up. The ultimate sting in the tail is that the Scottish Fisheries Protection Agency is expected to police that dirty deed.

Russell Brown: I begin by informing the House that I made the Speaker's office aware of the fact that I would arrive late for the debate.
	I appreciate that many hon. Members have spoken about the fishing fleets that operate out of their constituencies. The hon. Member for Banff and Buchan (Mr. Salmond) mentioned Annan, which is my home town. It no longer has a fishing fleet; its fishermen fish out of Kirkcudbright.
	Two major employers in Annan, however, are fish-processing businesses, and during the past couple of days I have spoken to management at both factories. On the surface, it seems that there will be little impact on those businesses. Both developed from cottage industries over many years. One started out producing smoked salmon and the company has now expanded to give regular employment to between 700 to 800 people. At this time of year, the number increases to between 1,100 and 1,200 to cope with seasonal work for the Christmas and new year period.
	The company uses very little white fish and I was assured that the current proposals would have no impact on their business. The only thing that might happen would be a small rescheduling of certain processes and the introduction of alternative product lines.
	The other company, which was known in the town for many years as nothing more than Xthe shrimp factory", is now run by Young's Bluecrest, whose main product is breaded scampi. Clearly, it has serious concerns because although it has been stated that stocks of nephrops are perfectly healthy, if the Council of Ministers decides fully to implement the scientific recommendations of ICES without heeding any other arguments about nephrops, the business could close down. The issue at stake here is by-catch, the problem identified by my hon. Friend the Member for Scarborough and Whitby (Lawrie Quinn) and my hon. and learned Friend the Member for Redcar (Vera Baird).
	My point to the Minister is that he has an important job to do, as others have said. It is important to take heed of much of what the scientists are saying in the ICES recommendations, but it is important also that scientists do not overstep the mark with certain elements of the recommendations. I hope that my hon. Friend will, as hon. Members from all parties have requested this afternoon, put up a fight for our UK fishing fleets.

Alan Reid: It is clear that if the Commission's recommendations were implemented, they would have a devastating effect not only on our fishing communities but on communities throughout the country that rely on fishing-related industries such as processing. However, the main impact will be felt by fishing communities, many of which are by their very nature isolated, so other sources of employment are hard to find.
	Let us be clear: even with the Commission's latest proposal for an 80 per cent. cut, the recommendations would still lead to the complete shutdown of the work of many fishing communities, and that shutdown would be permanent. The vessels, skills and infrastructure would all disappear, so even if the industry were allowed to resume fishing in 10 or 12 years, there would be nothing in place to allow it to reopen. If the Commission's proposals are accepted, the results will be permanent. That is how important it is that the Government argue vociferously for Britain in negotiations.
	This is not only a case of arguing vociferously, however. The Minister has been advised to adopt the tactics of the Deputy Prime Minister, but it is no good arguing and then losing the qualified majority vote; deals have to be done. I agree with what the hon. Member for Galloway and Upper Nithsdale (Mr. Duncan) said about deep-sea trawling off the west of Scotland earlier this year. The Scottish Fishermen's Federation supported the scientific advice, but in the secrecy of the Council of Ministers meeting a deal was done and Britain lost. This time we want the Government to negotiate seriously, and to succeed.
	Much has been said about the scientific evidence, and I echo what the hon. Member for Banff and Buchan (Mr. Salmond) said. The ICES figures show an increase of well over 20 per cent. in cod stocks this year compared with last year, and that, with the technical measures and the decommissioning that has taken place, indicates that the cod recovery plan is working. We should give it time to see whether it will work, rather than taking draconian measures now.
	The proposed measures for nephrops are particularly ridiculous. I have written answers from the Minister saying that his officials agree that the cod by-catch from nephrops is insignificant. The fact that the Commission's recommendations are in complete disagreement with British scientists shows how discredited they are.

Robert Smith: I want to reinforce the message that the industry will die if fisheries are closed, and even at 80 per cent., the industry has no future. That is why it is crucial that the right decisions are made this time.
	The hon. Member for Waveney (Mr. Blizzard) expressed worry about some of the figures. However, the figures for haddock come from the scientists' research, and the stock-spawning biomass has not been as high since 1971, so this is not just a minor blip; there is a reasonable stock-spawning biomass for haddock. The problem for the industry is that media coverage concentrates on cod, but that represents only between 10 and 12 per cent. of the business, and to close down the whole business for the sake of between 10 and 12 per cent. seems a draconian and risky measure.
	It would far more effective to take the research on board. After all, the Scottish Executive did not spend #1 million for nothing. To have all that research available but not to use it at this crucial time would be a ridiculous waste of that investment, so the research must inform the debate, which is about getting the balance of risk right and recognising the fishing industry's valuable role in the community.
	I welcome the Minister's commitment to consider what happens in the Norway negotiations. The fishermen certainly find that the Norwegian side seem to have far more direct input into those negotiations. Resolving that issue is crucial to building up good will.
	I want to reinforce the crucial message about European negotiations that has come from this debate. The Prime Minister may have been briefed, but he did not show that when he answered a question yesterday. However, having been briefed, he must understand the complexity of the situation. With qualified majority voting, we need him to say, in quiet negotiations at the highest levels, that the proposals on the table cannot make progress unless people recognise that although the whole United Kingdom does not depend on what happens in those negotiations, vital communities within the United Kingdom do. In particular, the north-east of Scotland is highly dependent on the fishing industry, and a positive outcome is required.

John Hayes: With the leave of the House, Madam Deputy Speaker, I wish to respond to the debate. I shall be brief because this has been a long debate and I want to give the Minister time to sum it up.
	I shall start by picking up the point about consensus made by the hon. Member for St. Ives (Andrew George). The genuine concern on both sides of the House has been reflected in many contributions from hon. Members of all political persuasions during this important and well argued debate, which has taken place in an appropriate, serious spirit that has reflected the genuine concerns in the affected communities. The hon. Gentleman was right to say that we must co-operate in defence of those communities to every possible degree.
	I wish to emphasise the point that was made by the hon. Members for Argyll and Bute (Mr. Reid), for Aberdeen, Central (Mr. Doran), for Great Grimsby (Mr. Mitchell) and various others—that those communities are rooted in the fishing industry. The hon. Member for Banff and Buchan (Mr. Salmond) gave the figures for the employment dependence throughout Scotland. I, too mentioned those figures in my earlier contribution, and they are shocking. One begins to realise that those communities will be truly devastated if the scale of reductions envisaged in the proposals is put in place. I hope that every Member is moved by that realisation, and it should inspire them to the sort of action called for by a variety of people
	Several hon. Members, including my hon. Friend the Member for Galloway and Upper Nithsdale (Mr. Duncan) and the hon. Members for Banff and Buchan and for Great Grimsby, made points about the science. They questioned not the scientists' intent, but whether the whole scientific picture had been laid before us.
	We should consider the latest information that has become available as a result of the changes that have taken place. We should consider not simply the technological changes referred to by the hon. Member for Great Grimsby, but the changes in the size of the fleet. People cannot project with any accuracy and assess the proposal's likely impact unless that projection is measured against the current state of the industry—a criticism that has been made time and again. Hon. Members on both sides of the House have made the point that we do not distrust scientists per se, but we want the science to be holistic, comprehensive and balanced.
	The hon. Member for West Aberdeenshire and Kincardine (Sir Robert Smith) said that even with 80 per cent. left, the industry would not be viable. He is right to emphasise that, because a partial restriction will not lower the mortgages or the cost of living of those fishing families, nor it will lower the fishing industry's fixed costs. The insurance costs and other permanent costs are not affected by the fact that the fishermen will not go to sea for two or three days a week, or whatever the compromise happens to be. The hon. Gentleman made an important point about the real impact of these changes, even if the Commission has suggested some sort of compromise.
	I have no doubts about the Minister's integrity or his knowledge of these matters. I said that at the beginning of the debate, and it has been reflected in the spirit of the debate, and in comments from Members on both sides of the House. As my hon. Friend the Member for Congleton (Ann Winterton) said, however, this is now a political matter, and it is recognised as such by the fishing industry as well as by politicians. It is political because it is about trading. It will involve trading, dealing, negotiations and all the other things that happen when such matters come before European Ministers. I do not doubt the integrity of our Minister, but I doubt his power to do anything about that.
	Unless the matter is dealt with at the very highest level of Government, and the Prime Minister takes a personal and genuine interest and gives fishing the priority—several hon. Members used that word—that many of us believe it deserves, it will be traded away as if it were nothing. I am not prepared to let that happen without a fight, and without speaking very loudly about it in this Chamber and elsewhere. That is the challenge to the Minister. He knows that I believe that the only way forward is to leave the common fisheries policy. I will say that time and again. Given that that will not happen while the current crisis is being resolved, we legitimately demand—not on our behalf but on behalf of those hard-pressed fishermen, their families and their communities—that he fight for them with every sinew in his body, and that his boss, the Prime Minister, show legitimate concern and real passion in fighting for them, too.

Elliot Morley: With the leave of the House, Madam Deputy Speaker, I shall wind up the debate.
	We have heard speeches from the hon. Member for South Holland and The Deepings (Mr. Hayes), my hon. Friend the Member for Aberdeen, Central (Mr. Doran), the hon. Member for St. Ives (Andrew George), my hon. Friend the Member for Scarborough and Whitby (Lawrie Quinn), the hon. Member for Congleton (Ann Winterton), my hon. Friend the Member for Great Grimsby (Mr. Mitchell), the hon. Member for Banff and Buchan (Mr. Salmond), my hon. Friend the Member for Tynemouth (Mr. Campbell), the hon. Member for Orkney and Shetland (Mr. Carmichael), my hon. Friend the Member for Waveney (Mr. Blizzard), the hon. Member for Galloway and Upper Nithsdale (Mr. Duncan), my hon. Friend the Member for Dumfries (Mr. Brown), the hon. Member for Argyll and Bute (Mr. Reid), and the hon. Member for West Aberdeenshire and Kincardine (Sir Robert Smith). That demonstrates the concern of many Members about the Commission's proposals on fishing. These debates are serious, because Members participate on the basis of their knowledge, and of representing their constituencies and the fishing industry. I very much respect that.
	Looking for some of the solutions will be difficult. We should be clear that the Commission is deadly serious. There were one or two comments about scares; the idea is that a big scare leads to a compromise, which can be brought back and demonstrated as a success. We have been moving away from that for some years in the Fisheries Council. I, for one, have not been arguing against the science when it is justified, and the Commission has been very serious about its proposals and increasingly reluctant to move from them. What I have not heard tonight—I put this mildly—is solutions from the Opposition for the problem. It is difficult—and it will continue to be difficult. I appreciate the fact that the hon. Member for Congleton had some solutions; I am not sure that they were workable, but nevertheless, she had some solutions.
	On some of the points that were raised, however, I should make it clear that I absolutely agree with my hon. Friend the Member for Waveney that the science is paramount. I am genuinely sorry about what happened to the Colne fleet. As he knows, I have met those people many times. He still has an important fish market in that area, however, and an important inshore fleet with long-liners, and I recognise and take note of the fact that that is a very selective fishery.
	I must correct what the hon. Member for South Holland and The Deepings said about the Irish sea recovery plan. There have been some encouraging signs, although we must be cautious about the science. I shall talk about that in a moment. I should make it clear that the closed area was closed to all vessels, including beamers, from whatever country. It is not the case that we were closing it to our vessels while other vessels could go in—and that is not what I would want to see. The hon. Gentleman played the blame game a bit. He implied that other countries were responsible, and that we were not, but we must face up to our responsibility.
	As for the impact on other countries, Germany and Sweden have already announced that they support the moratorium and will tie up their fleets. For other fleets, the Commission is calling for a 40 per cent. cut in effort for beam trawling. That will have an enormous impact on Holland and Belgium, and on France, which also has an important cod fishery. The implications are therefore not just for the UK. Other countries are facing difficult issues, too.
	It is certainly true that the North sea mixed fishery is of dominant importance to the UK. The proposals for cod stocks—which, along with those for the mixed fishery of haddock and whiting, are in the greatest difficulty—will impact on us, and I do not dispute that they will impact on us in a big way. That is why Members have been right to raise their concerns.
	However, I have some reassurance about effort. We are now making our calculations about what might be the effort reduction on the baseline figures to which the Commission is working. We have probably reduced effort by 12 per cent., so one can deduct that figure from whatever the Commission proposes. It may well be possible to increase it.
	However, I want to be honest with the House about our thinking. I am not prepared to argue for reductions that I cannot justify on the science. I will argue for reductions, but only if there is a strong case. The Commission has heard it all before. Many countries will demand reductions of what it proposes. They will demand more quota, and the Commission has become cynical about that. However, the UK has been successful because we have been able to justify our position on strong scientific grounds. That is why the position on nephrops has changed. Because of our research, and the evidence, the Commission now recognises that there is no case for closing the nephrops fishery. The by-catch is tiny. That important change demonstrates that we can make progress.
	I will write to the regional development agencies in England to alert them about the potential impacts on local areas. I agree with the hon. Member for Congleton that the way in which the issue of kilowatt days has been presented in the Commission as a blunt tool that will be used to force people into decommissioning by bankruptcy is not acceptable. We will not go along with that proposal. There may be merits in considering a kilowatt days effort regime, but that involves talking with the industry and making the proposals work.
	I agree with my hon. Friend the Member for Tynemouth that this is a time for cool heads; it is not a time for panicking. The industry should distinguish between what might look good and produce lots of excitement, and what will produce results. I am concerned with getting good results based on good science and sustainability. However, I will work closely with my colleagues in the Scottish Executive and the devolved Administrations. I recognise the points that hon. Members have made. I shall certainly stand up for the fishing industry of this country, but I shall do so on the basis of good science and sustainable management, while recognising the justification of the case that steps must be taken to deal with the severe decline in fish stocks.
	Hon. Members will be coming to see me privately soon, and I will be able to go into the science in more detail then than I can in one minute now.
	It being four hours after the commencement of business, Madam Deputy Speaker, put the Question necessary to dispose of the business at that hour, pursuant to Order [18 November].
	Question put, That the amendment be made:—
	The House proceeded to a Division.

Madam Deputy Speaker: I ask the Serjeant at Arms to investigate the delay in the No Lobby.

The House having divided: Ayes 32, Noes 232.

Question accordingly negatived.
	Main Question put and agreed to.
	Resolved,
	That this House takes note of European Union documents No. COM (02) 181, Commission Communication on the reform of the Common Fisheries Policy (XRoadmap"), No. COM (02) 185, draft Council Regulation on the conservation and sustainable exploitation of fisheries resources under the Common Fisheries Policy, No. COM (02) 187, draft Council Regulation amending Regulation (EC) No. 2792/1999 laying down the detailed rules and arrangements regarding Community structural assistance in the fisheries sector, No. COM (02) 190, draft Council Regulation establishing an emergency Community measure for scrapping fishing vessels, No. COM (02) 186, Commission Communication, a Community Action Plan to integrate environmental protection requirements into the Common Fisheries Policy, and No. COM (02) 180, Commission Communication, a Community Action Plan for the eradication of illegal, unreported and unregulated fishing; and supports the Government's objectives, which are to work for a Common Fisheries Policy that is environmentally and economically sustainable, to strengthen the Common Fisheries Policy's regional dimension, to increase industry involvement in decisions on fisheries management and conservation and improve the dialogue between fishermen and scientists, to increase the integration of environmental concerns into fisheries management, to introduce clearer procedures for responding quickly to conservation emergencies, to confirm the 6 and 12-mile access restrictions on a permanent basis, to continue relative stability (including the Hague Preference) and retain the Shetland Box, to ensure greater effectiveness and consistency in control and enforcement of European Union requirements, while attempting to simplify the burden of control on fishermen, to improve the value for money of third country agreements and their coherence with development and environmental objectives and to promote the effective operation of Regional Fisheries Organizations.

Committee of Selection

Motion made, and Question proposed,
	That Mr John Hayes be discharged from the Committee of Selection and Mr Peter Luff be added to the Committee.—[Keith Hill.]

Mr. Deputy Speaker: Mr. Speaker has chosen the amendment in the name of Pete Wishart.

John McWilliam: The Committee of Selection exists under the private business Standing Orders and not the public business Standing Orders. The principal function of the Committee was originally, and still is, to appoint members of private Committees. That is because, in previous times, private interests promoted much of the legislation that passed through the House. The canals and railways were built using private Bills, as were toll roads. I know of a bridge in Oxfordshire where one has to pay a toll of one old penny—I think that it is now 5p—to cross. That has been our principal role and it remains so today.
	The motion seeks to discharge the hon. Member for South Holland and The Deepings (Mr. Hayes) from the Committee of Selection and appoint in his place the hon. Member for Mid-Worcestershire (Mr. Luff). The change is consequent on a recent shadow Cabinet reshuffle in which the hon. Member for South Holland and The Deepings was made shadow Agriculture Minister. If anybody was in any doubt about that, they should have been present for the winding-up speeches in the previous debate. The hon. Member for Mid-Worcestershire then took his place as the Conservative party's pairing Whip.
	I take this opportunity to thank the hon. Member for South Holland and The Deepings for the service that he gave the Committee and his good-natured contributions. I wish him well in his future role. To judge by his performance earlier, he needs no encouragement from me.
	For many years, the Opposition pairing Whip had a seat on the Committee of Selection. His role is to propose the names of official Opposition Members to serve on Standing and Select Committees and, of course, private Bill Committees. The membership change is therefore essential to enable the Committee of Selection to carry out the work delegated to it by the House. Such changes in membership are not unusual. A similar change was made on 17 October 2001 when the hon. Member for South Holland and The Deepings replaced the hon. Member for Beverley and Holderness (Mr. Cran). On 5 November 2001, my hon. Friend the Member for Enfield, North (Joan Ryan) replaced my hon. Friend the Member for Regent's Park and Kensington, North (Ms Buck).

Alex Salmond: The hon. Gentleman has described the duties and background of the Committee of Selection. Could it discharge its duties effectively if a member of the minority parties sat on it?

John McWilliam: I shall deal with that later in my peroration. I intend to cover that specific point in the context of the amendment.
	I thank hon. Members who served the Committee so well. Their service was greatly appreciated by my colleagues who remain members of the Committee. I congratulate the new members on their role. I look forward to the hon. Member for Mid-Worcestershire joining us in due course.
	The motion first appeared on the Order Paper on 15 October during unopposed private business immediately after Prayers. Hon. Members objected to it then and subsequently, resulting in today's debate. Scottish National party and Plaid Cymru Members were among those who objected. The debate may therefore provide a good opportunity to inform hon. Members about how the Committee of Selection deals with smaller parties.
	As required by private business Standing Order No. 109, the Committee has only nine members, of whom six are Labour, two Conservative and one Liberal Democrat. The composition is in proportion to that of the House. There are currently 410 Labour Members, 163 Conservative Members, 53 Liberal Democrats, nine SNP or Plaid Cymru Members, six Ulster Unionists, five Democratic Unionist party Members, four Sinn Fein Members, three Social Democratic and Labour party Members and two independent Members, as well as the Speaker and the Deputy Speakers.
	We take great care to ensure that we adhere to the proportions that I outlined. If we take 651 Members of the House as a base, 0.630 are Labour, 0.250 are Conservative and 0.120 are others. Hon. Members who care to work out how nine Members can represent 651 in those proportions will realise that it is difficult. We take the matter seriously: we work out the figures and round them up, which is when matters become interesting.
	Enabling minority parties such as the SNP and Plaid Cymru to qualify for a seat would make for a large and unwieldy Committee, which would benefit neither its members nor the House. On a Committee of nine, such as the Committee of Selection, the composition is six Labour Members, two Conservative Members and a member of the largest minority party, the Liberal Democrats.
	Until recently, the Liberal Democrats represented the smaller parties on the Committee of Selection. A problem arose last year, and the matter was raised through the usual channels. An agreement was made whereby Government Whips now represent the smaller parties. The new arrangement appears to have worked satisfactorily. At least, I have heard no complaints, and I am sure that the hon. Member for Banff and Buchan (Mr. Salmond), who has known me for many years, would not feel diffident about picking up the telephone or dropping me a note. I encourage that. If any hon. Members have difficulties about the Committee of Selection, I would be happy to discuss its work with them.
	The arrangement worked but it broke down and the replacement is satisfactory. Anxieties have been expressed about the representation of the smaller parties on the Liaison Committee. That Committee is not nominated by the Committee of Selection. Almost all the Committees appointed by the Committee of Selection are proposed using the formula that I have described to ensure that their composition reflects as accurately as possible the balance of the parties in the House.
	The few exceptions are special cases, such as the Select Committee on Northern Ireland Affairs, on which the smaller parties are over-represented—and correctly so. I often chair the Northern Ireland Grand Committee, and I take great pains to ensure that the parties whose members are based in Northern Ireland have some precendence for speaking, because they could otherwise be swamped. It is not only the Committee of Selection that does that; the Chairmen's Panel is also aware of such issues and we try our best to ensure that that happens.
	I mentioned that the Committee of Selection was based on the private business Standing Orders. We still have an important role in selecting private Committees. We have had a change since the Committee of Selection was first set up. Obviously, the decision to add the setting up of Standing Committees and Select Committees to the Committee of Selection's tasks was a sensible one for the House to make. It saved setting up a totally different Committee and meant that the Committee's role continued.

Alex Salmond: I know from previous experience that the hon. Gentleman is a very fair-minded man, but he is being less than fair to his Committee. There are 25 Members from minority parties in the House, and the membership of a number of Committees—including the Select Committee on Environment, Food and Rural Affairs—has been expanded to allow a minority party to be represented. With his long experience of fairness, does he consider it an unreasonable objective that each minority party should sit on one departmental Select Committee, over and above the territorial Committees on which they obviously have to be represented?

John McWilliam: The hon. Gentleman raises an interesting point. In the case of the SNP, there is a Parliament in Edinburgh to which much of the work that the departmental Select Committees do down here has been devolved. Only the retained functions continue to be dealt with here. I would think it silly to have a member of the SNP on any Committee whose functions, as they affect Scotland, have been totally devolved.

Pete Wishart: Following that logic, may I presume that the hon. Gentleman would have no problem if a minority party managed to secure membership of a non-territorial departmental Select Committee that examines the reserved powers?

John McWilliam: I recall a period when the official Unionist party had a place on the Select Committee on Defence, which it lost because all its Members stood for re-election. I cannot remember the reason for that, although I am sure that it was a good one. When they resigned their seats, however, the place had to be reallocated, and it was allocated to the official Opposition. I think that I might have been one of the beneficiaries of that. Anyway, that is what happened.
	To increase the representation of the SNP and Plaid Cymru, we would, as I have said, have to shove the membership of the Committee of Selection up to an unwieldy number. On the principle that the hon. Gentleman raised, however, the Scottish Parliament has powers to enact private legislation. Indeed, it would be difficult to envisage an instance in which it would be appropriate for the Scottish promoter of a private Bill to promote it in this House rather than in the Scottish Parliament. I shall try to drag up an example instantly. If someone were proposing to do something on Ministry of Defence land, that would probably fall within the remit of this House, but I cannot think of anything else that would.
	The Government of Wales Act 1998 provides for a different position. I had the privilege of chairing part of the deliberations on that legislation on the Floor of the House. I remind hon. Members that, although the Welsh Assembly does not deal with private legislation as such, it may promote it in this House. Although there are controls over that, somebody could petition the Welsh Assembly to promote a private Bill here, but the Assembly must vote to promote such a measure, with two thirds of Members in favour. Two thirds of Members do not need to be present, however.
	I understand that discussions are taking place between the Wales Office and the Assembly on whether to amend that provision to provide more flexibility for the Assembly. I do not know how those discussions are proceeding—I am in no position to know—but I understand why Plaid Cymru Members and Welsh Members of other parties may want to make such a change.
	Before I sit down, I must thank personally the right hon. Member for North-West Hampshire (Sir George Young) for so ably stepping into the breach, which he did not have to fill, to look after the interests of the official Opposition while the hon. Member for Mid-Worcestershire (Mr. Luff) was away doing other duties such as preparing for the debate earlier this evening. The right hon. Gentleman stepped in with his usual wit and charm—he is always a welcome and useful member of my Committee.
	Having said that, I have probably banged on long enough. The basis of my objection to the amendment is simple and straightforward: if there were to be a member of the Committee of Selection from a minority party, I would argue that the Scottish National party is the least appropriate minority party to have one; were the Committee of Selection to be expanded to such a size as to enable the minority parties to be represented, I would argue that it was of such a size as to be unwieldy.

Pete Wishart: According to the hon. Gentleman's logic, that rule applies to SNP Members, but surely it should also apply to Scottish Labour Back Benchers, two of whom chair Select Committees?

John McWilliam: It strikes me that the Department of Trade and Industry has some powers devolved and some not, so I would not worry too much about that.
	If expanded to such a size, the Committee would become too unwieldy to work. As members of the Committee know, sometimes we have to meet because someone has got something wrong or some mechanism has got stuck. I must tell the House that I do not believe in back-door deals. We do not always meet in a Committee Room, but we always have a quorum and we always have a Clerk present if we have to amend a proposal before it goes on the Order Paper so as to enable the decision to be taken cleanly and properly.
	Having said that, I ask hon. Members to vote against the amendment and for the Government motion.

Pete Wishart: I beg to move, To leave out XMr Peter Luff" and insert XPete Wishart".
	We have nothing against the hon. Member for Mid-Worcestershire (Mr. Luff), whom I am sure will prove to be a worthy and constructive member of the Committee of Selection. We have moved the amendment to draw attention to the plight of the minority parties. Our dispute has nothing to do with him, as he well knows, but everything to do with the treatment of the minority parties at the hands of the House.
	If the House, in its wisdom, agrees to put me on the Committee of Selection, I pledge to be diligent. I will do all that I can to represent the interests not just of minority parties but of the Government and the official Opposition and to ensure that they both get all the Select Committee places that they feel entitled to or require.

John McWilliam: I hope that the hon. Gentleman realises that the role that he has described is one that I take very much to heart—it is the role that I attempt to play and have always attempted to play on the Committee. I try to be as objective, fair, open and honest as I can and I try to make certain that everybody gets a fair deal.

Pete Wishart: I would not dare question the hon. Gentleman's integrity. I am sure he is absolutely right.
	We tabled the amendment because we were almost at our wits' end. We wondered what more we had to do to convince the House that we in the minority parties want to be recognised as a significant constituency, and to play a constructive role in the House's business.
	The hon. Member for Blaydon (Mr. McWilliam) described me as an SNP Member, but I also represent all the minority parties this evening. We work well together, as he was gracious enough to acknowledge, but ours is very much a business arrangement. Little unites us politically. At the end of the day, when a Division is called, we go into different Lobbies, and that is fine and dandy. On one matter, however, we overwhelmingly agree: we in the minority parties deserve better from the House.

Jim Sheridan: The hon. Gentleman said that he would act responsibly in representing the House. I find that astounding, given that he and the rest of his party work against the House's best interests, talk it down and indeed seek to get rid of it.

Pete Wishart: The hon. Gentleman is well aware of information collected by POLIS that shows how effectively Scottish Back Benchers contribute to debate here. Invariably, SNP Members have topped any contributions by Labour Members. I will not be lectured by the hon. Gentleman.

Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order. I hope that we shall hear no more of this discussion, as it is well beyond the terms of the amendment.

Pete Wishart: Thank you for your guidance, Mr. Deputy Speaker.
	The House must recognise that we in the minority parties are now 23-strong. Our membership is almost half that of the Liberal Democrats, but we have nothing like the same number of Select Committee places and nothing like the same influence in the House. The Liberal Democrats are on every Select Committee, while we are on only seven out of 46. The Liberal Democrats are a fair party that believes in proportionality. Let us see how proportional representation applies to these circumstances.
	To be fair to the Liberal Democrats, it must be said that they are only looking after their own, within the rules and confines of the House. I know that it is different in the Committee of Selection, but the average Select Committee has 11 places. According to the rules, seven must be reserved for the Government, three for the official Opposition and one for the other minority parties, including the Liberal Democrats. Who can blame the Liberal Democrats for snaffling all the places for themselves? Why should they care about the other minority parties? Even when they were responsible for looking after the interests of the minority parties, they still took all the seats.
	Something is not working here when a constituency of this size can be overlooked. If our membership is about half the size of that of the Liberal Democrats, we should be given about half the number of places that they currently have.

John McWilliam: So who is to be cut in half?

Pete Wishart: I could suggest several candidates. I am looking in front of me, but I will not comment.
	I pledge that I would be a diligent member of the Committee of Selection. In some respects, things have improved for the minority parties. The hon. Gentleman mentioned the new arrangement whereby the Government Whips represent the minority parties, and I must say that that has been a very satisfactory solution. We have access to the usual channels.

Anne Picking: You said earlier that minority parties get together to discuss how you want to work, but that your pathways often diverge when it comes to political decisions. How can you possibly effectively—

Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order. The hon. Lady should use correct parliamentary language. When she says Xyou", she is addressing the Chair.

Anne Picking: I am sorry Mr. Deputy Speaker—I am not used to being on my feet. I do not get many opportunities to speak, because my party has such a large majority.

Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order. If the hon. Lady makes regular applications to speak, she may find that she is more successful.

Anne Picking: Point taken, Mr. Deputy Speaker.
	How can the hon. Gentleman represent the minority parties when they are not of the same ilk politically?

Pete Wishart: Perhaps the hon. Lady should make better use of her few opportunities to address this House than by asking such an innocuous question. As I tried to explain, our coming together is a business arrangement. We do not hide the fact that we take different political positions on certain issues. Such an arrangement allows us to progress the case of minority parties in this House.
	Things have improved for the minority parties under the tutelage of the Government Whips, who look after our interests. We now have access to the usual channels, and we get quicker and improved access to the business of the House. We have managed to secure most of the places that we seek in Standing Committees and other such Committees. The Government have been generous—they have given us an allotted time to debate matters in the House, and for that we are grateful.
	I seek this place on the Committee of Selection—I am ensuring that I say that several times—because in some respects things have got worse for the minority parties. Joint Committees of both Houses, which are increasingly used, are 24-strong. Even according to the crude arithmetic of this House, the minority parties should have a place on them. They look after crucial national issues such as Lords reform and communication, which is fundamental and essential to Northern Ireland, Wales and Scotland. We are overlooked in their membership, and the House should address that.
	The hon. Member for Blaydon was generous enough to refer to the Liaison Committee, which has 32 members. Again according to the crude arithmetic of this House, we should have a place—

Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order. The hon. Gentleman used the word Xgenerous", and I was extremely generous in allowing the Chairman of the Committee of Selection to deploy his arguments. However, we have gone rather wide of the amendment to which the hon. Gentleman is speaking.

Pete Wishart: I am grateful for that correction, Mr. Deputy Speaker. I mention the Liaison Committee because I do not want to be just a member of the Committee of Selection but to be its Chairman so that I can qualify for the Liaison Committee. That is a reasonable demand, Mr. Deputy Speaker, because as you and hon. Members know, to be a member of the Liaison Committee one has to be a Chairman of a Select Committee. If that is the only mechanism to get a member of a minority party on to the Liaison Committee, make me the Chairman of the Committee of Selection. I am sure that the hon. Member for Blaydon would have no particular objection to that.
	I believe that the Government understand and appreciate the plight of minority parties in this House, and we have heard some sympathetic noises from them. I meet representatives of the Government Whips Office weekly, and those meetings are useful and constructive. Government Whips do not deserve their fearsome reputation—they are a convivial bunch of chaps who are easy to do business with. The Leader of the House appreciates the plight of the minority parties. To judge from his correspondence with me, and his responses to points raised in the House, he seems sympathetic to our cause. He says that he is looking for solutions, and I take that at face value. Nor do I want to exclude the Conservatives, who have been more than helpful in their new arrangement. I seek to be on the Committee of Selection so that I can build on such relationships with Front-Bench Members. It has also been useful to be told how we could perhaps create merry havoc in the House by continuing with this campaign.
	I wish that I could extend this expression of good will to the Liberal Democrats, but, alas, that would be taking the spirit of generosity a bit too far. There is no truer saying than that you never know where you are with the Liberal Democrats—the pick-and-mix people of politics. They are responsible for looking after the minority parties, yet they took away the only non-territorial departmental Select Committee that SNP-Plaid Cymru had. Their stewardship of minority parties has been about as useful as a chocolate frying pan. I wish that the expressions of good will that we have detected from Government Front Benchers, the Leader of the House's office and Conservative Members could be translated into Select Committee places. We welcome the support, but we would rather have the places.

Bill Tynan: Has the hon. Gentleman approached the Modernisation Committee on this matter, or has he simply taken this opportunity to further his career?

Pete Wishart: I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman for his concern about my career. I am touched, but he makes a good point about the Modernisation Committee, which has two Liberal Democrat members. Why does it not have one Liberal, and one member from a minority party?
	We are getting there, step by step. The House must recognise that it has obligations and should appear to be as representative as possible. That is why I am seeking this place on the Committee of Selection.

Jim Sheridan: Does the hon. Gentleman agree that, if the House accepts his amendment, the incentive for minority parties to become majority parties will be removed?

Pete Wishart: I am grateful for the hon. Gentleman's concern about the possibility that my party could become a majority party in this House. I assure him that it has no ambition in that direction. The House will have to ensure at some point that minority parties with substantial constituencies are properly represented. Minorities should be over-represented, not overlooked.
	I realise that the amendment is unlikely to be accepted, and I accept the arithmetic that shows that the minority parties in the House have only 23 Members. However, the SNP is the second party in Scotland, and the official Opposition there. The same is true of Plaid Cymru in Wales, and the hon. Member for East Antrim (Mr. Beggs) belongs to a party that, when Stormont sits, effectively forms the Government of Northern Ireland. I hope that that Assembly will sit again before too long.
	Collectively, the minority parties represent 1.5 million people in the UK. For some time, I have wondered why it is not possible for me to be on the Committee of Selection. If I catch Mr. Speaker's eye, I can take part in the business of the House, participate in debates, ask questions and serve on Standing Committees. Why, then, are the minority parties under-represented on Select Committees when their members can play a full part in the House otherwise? We are told that we are too few in number, but why are we unable to gain access only to the departmental Select Committees?
	I hope that this campaign will allow the House to understand more fully the position of the minority parties. The House depends on the good will of all parties to function. We believe that, if that good will is not shown to us, we have every right to withdraw our good will in return. Our campaign is to increase our influence in the House, but we are not asking for all that much. It is not unreasonable for each minority party to be given one place on a non-departmental Select Committee beyond their territory.

Anne Picking: Will the hon. Gentleman explain what he means when he says that his party will withdraw good will?

Pete Wishart: We do not want to come to the House time and again to put forward our case for increased representation here. I hope that the House is beginning to understand that we want to play a constructive part in the House's workings and institutions.

John Burnett: We all hope that members of one of the minority parties will grace the House with their presence at the debate on next year's Finance Bill.

Pete Wishart: In that case, I hope that the hon. Gentleman will support us if we put in a bid to serve on the Finance Bill Committee. All too often we put in bids to serve on Standing Committees, only to be knocked back. We put in bids to be involved in Select Committees and are knocked back.

Alex Salmond: I recall an amendment to the Treasury Committee's membership when I was nominated to replace, admittedly, a Liberal Democrat Member. The hon. Member for Torridge and West Devon (Mr. Burnett) voted against me, presumably because he did not want me to scrutinise items such as the Budget and the Finance Bill.

Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order. That was an interesting piece of parliamentary history, but has little to do with the amendment.

Pete Wishart: Even so, it is a point well made.
	I shall conclude, Mr. Deputy Speaker, because I think that I have tested your patience in trying to stay in order. What we are asking for is not unreasonable—we are asking for one place in a non-territorial departmental Select Committee. Give us a place on the Liaison Committee for goodness' sake—it is 32-strong. Surely a place could be found for a member of the minority parties. I do not think that we are asking for much. I ask the House to give us our place.

Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order. Before I call the next speaker, I remind the House that I have been generous so far in my interpretation of the motion and the amendment. In the time remaining, however, I appeal to right hon. and hon. Members to stay strictly in order in debating the amendment.

Roy Beggs: I will adhere strictly to your guidance, Mr. Deputy Speaker. Let me say first that I have the highest admiration and respect for the hon. Member for Mid-Worcestershire (Mr. Luff), and I congratulate the hon. Member for North Tayside (Pete Wishart) on the way in which he put his case.
	I wish to register support for the principle that a place should be found on the Committee of Selection and other Committees so that the voice of a representative of the small minority parties can be heard. The small minority parties have met and are agreed that when given an opportunity to serve, we can, by agreement, put forward a representative. For that reason, I support the hon. Member for North Tayside and agree that he should be appointed to the Committee of Selection. At this time, he is the agreed representative of small minority parties in the House. On the basis of seeking greater inclusivity of Committee membership and in order to give Committee experience to small parties through agreed rotation of their representative, I hope that the House will seek to provide the opportunity to serve on the Committee of Selection and other Committees to the agreed representative of the small minority parties, at the earliest possible opportunity, if not tonight.
	The hon. Member for North Tayside has played keyboard with Runrig; he has made music to the delight of many audiences for 15 years and is, I think, the only Member of the House to have appeared on XTop of the Pops". His inclusion on the Committee of Selection or any other Committee would no doubt bring harmony to this House. I believe that it would also increase the sense of worth and equal value of every Member and party represented in the House. I support the amendment.

Eric Forth: Although the debate seems on the face of it to be about the specific issue of the replacement of one of my hon. Friends with another Member in the routine way that the Chairman of the Committee of Selection has described, it subsumes some bigger issues that have been touched on and to which I hope I will be allowed to refer, however briefly, because they are very important to the House. For that reason, I am very grateful to the hon. Member for North Tayside (Pete Wishart) for allowing us to touch on these issues this evening. I hope that the Government will take this seriously and allow us collectively to consider the issues again. They are, no more and no less, the role of the minority parties at large in the House and its Committees and institutions. When I talk of minority parties, I refer not only to the Scottish National party, Plaid Cymru, the Ulster Unionists, the Democratic Unionist party and the Social Democratic and Labour party but also to the Liberal Democrats, who are a minority party in the House.
	If we consider the total minority party membership, it is about 80 Members in 659—or about 650 if we exclude you and your colleagues, Mr. Deputy Speaker—so there could be a case for saying that the minority parties generally should have proportionate representation on all Committees, including the Committee of Selection.

Andrew Stunell: Does the right hon. Gentleman recall that earlier this year the House voted on the Modernisation Committee proposals, which included reform of the operation of the Committee of Selection? Had that been accepted by the House, there would indeed have been a minority representative on the Committee and the problem would have been overcome. May I remind the right hon. Gentleman that he voted against that reform and for the entrenchment of the arrangements that he is criticising?

Eric Forth: I am more than proud to vote against most of the rubbish that emanates from the Modernisation Committee, and hope to continue to do so.
	The issue is wider than the Committee of Selection. My argument is a much more general and, if I may say so, generous one: we should treat the minority parties collectively, as I have described them, in an even-handed way. We could thus properly extend the hand of generosity and recognition to all the minority parties, not least on the Committee of Selection, as is being suggested.
	This is a microcosm of the much wider debate that should take place, not, I hope, in the Modernisation Committee but in a much more sensible forum where we could achieve some generosity and common sense. I was interested that tribute was rightly paid to the current custodianship of the Government Whips Office—represented in this debate in such a distinguished way by the Government Deputy Chief Whip—for an abler and much fairer representation of the minority parties than the Liberal Democrats managed. I pay tribute to the Government for that.
	The issue goes from the particular to the general. The particular issue is important, but I hope that Members of the minority parties will not press it to a vote, although they have correctly used it as a vehicle for this debate, which I welcome because it is important.

Pete Wishart: We do not want to divide the House this evening. We have made our case as we intended.

Eric Forth: I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman for his decency and generosity in saying that. As I said, he has properly used the matter as an opportunity for a debate, but he has generously said that he will not press it to a vote. He realises, as the Chairman of the Committee of Selection pointed out, that such changes of membership are routine. They occur from time to time in order to recognise the changes that take place in the ranks of the Government and the official Opposition, so from that point of view they are uncontroversial.
	I hope, however, that following this debate, which has been conducted in a good-natured and constructive way, we shall have further opportunities to examine in a broader sense the representation of the minority parties throughout the Committee structure, so that we can properly recognise the role played by all the minority parties, including of course the Liberal Democrats.

Andrew Bennett: Should we not also look at their attendance? The right hon. Gentleman will be aware that the minority parties took the Liberal place on the Joint Committee on Statutory Instruments, as the Liberal Member did not turn up for 12 months. Minority party attendance at that Committee is not especially good.

Eric Forth: I recognise what the hon. Gentleman says, but I do not think that it would be productive or proper to get into that point at this stage, although it may become a consideration in the future. If, for example, we were able to guarantee the minority parties collectively a place on each Committee, which is really what the hon. Member for North Tayside was asking for, we might find that they would respond by taking their attendance a bit more seriously. If the Liberal Democrats' representation were reduced, that might concentrate their minds a bit, which would help to answer the point made by the hon. Member for Denton and Reddish (Andrew Bennett).
	We now have an opportunity to reconsider the role that all the minority parties play in the House and in Committees, and there is a case to be made for saying that if we took the minority parties together, and allocated the total of their 80 Members to Committees according to proportionality, we could come to a fair and proper conclusion. The debate has allowed us to look ahead. We have seen the generosity of spirit displayed by the hon. Member for North Tayside in saying that he has brought the matter to the attention of the House but he does not propose to divide the House, and I am grateful to him for that.
	In closing, I express my gratitude to my right hon. Friend the Member for North-West Hampshire (Sir George Young) for, in his usual way, so ably helping and representing the official Opposition during this period of hiatus, which I hope will shortly come to an end as we conclude this debate. I hope that the Minister will be able to respond positively to the suggestions made by minority party representatives and myself so that we can look forward to a more even-handed and fair distribution of representation than we have seen hitherto.

Ben Bradshaw: I echo the comments made by the shadow Leader of the House, the right hon. Member for Bromley and Chislehurst (Mr. Forth), about this being a constructive, positive debate, and I hope that he will find my responses characteristically positive.
	The motion before the House is routine and straightforward. It has been outlined by the Chairman of the Committee of Selection, my hon. Friend the Member for Blaydon (Mr. McWilliam). The change being sought comes as a consequence of the recent shadow Cabinet reshuffle in which the hon. Member for South Holland and The Deepings (Mr. Hayes) was made a shadow Agriculture Minister and the hon. Member for Mid-Worcestershire (Mr. Luff) took his place as the Conservative pairing Whip. As has already been explained, for many years the official Opposition's pairing Whip has had a seat on the Committee of Selection. His role is to propose the names of official Opposition Members to serve on Standing and Select Committees. The membership change that we are debating is essential for the Committee to carry out its work as delegated to it by the House.
	The Committee of Selection was established under private business Standing Order No. 109. It has, as my hon. Friend the Member for Blaydon has already explained, nine members, of which six currently are Labour, two Conservative and one Liberal Democrat. That breakdown is proportionate to the political composition of the House. It has been pointed out that until recently the smaller parties were represented on the Committee by the Liberal Democrats, but that arrangement broke down last year.

Eric Forth: Why?

Ben Bradshaw: It is not for me to go into any grief between two minority parties, but the smaller parties are now represented by the Government. As we have heard, that arrangement seems to have worked satisfactorily, and I believe that the hon. Member for Moray (Angus Robertson) said from a sedentary position that it is much better.
	The hon. Member for North Tayside, however, was slightly unfair about the Liberal Democrats' relationship with the rest of the minority parties. Far be it from me to come to the defence of the Liberal Democrats , but I understand that there are six examples of seats on Standing Committees being given up by the Liberal Democrats to the smaller minority parties. There also seems to be confusion about what constitutes a minority party, or at least a failure to be strict enough in our terminology.

Eric Forth: No, no.

Ben Bradshaw: The right hon. Gentleman may disagree, but in this debate the term Xminority party" has been used by some to include the Liberal Democrats and by others to exclude them.

Alex Salmond: I am interested in what the Minister means by Xgiving up" places. It has been said that if the minority parties, whose Members add up to almost half the number of Liberal Democrat Members, had half their number of Committee places, we would be more than satisfied. However, we have only a fraction of that at the moment. Does what the Minister said about giving up places mean that other Members in the House are given a place on a Committee only because someone has given it up? Is not there an entitlement?

Ben Bradshaw: I am simply seeking to point out to the House that on six occasions, at the request of minority parties—largely, I have to say, at the request of the Scottish National party—the Liberal Democrats have given up places on Standing Committees.
	Blocking this change in membership—the effect of the amendment—is helpful to no one, although I appreciate that Opposition Members have concerns about smaller party representation. Indeed, that concern is shared, particularly by my right hon. Friend the Leader of the House. He shares their desire to ensure that the matter is treated with fairness.
	I appreciate the fact that the hon. Member for North Tayside was generous enough to acknowledge that matters had improved not only under this Government but under my right hon. Friend's stewardship. I was slightly sorry to hear the hon. Gentleman express veiled threats about what might happen in relation to co-operating with the business of the House if things did not improve even more quickly. I am sorry about that and hope that he will not feel the need to follow through with any of those threats.
	I wish to quote from a letter that my right hon. Friend the Leader of the House wrote in response to a letter that he received from the hon. Members for Banff and Buchan (Mr. Salmond) and for Meirionnydd Nant Conwy (Mr. Llwyd) on 14 November. [Interruption.] I am sorry about my pronunciation; my Welsh is not great. My right hon. Friend said:
	XWhen the House voted against an overall increase in the size of select committees last May"—
	as was pointed out by the hon. Member for Hazel Grove (Mr. Stunell)—
	Xit turned down the opportunity to offer up to fifty additional colleagues places on select committees. I hope that the Committee of Selection will bear the needs of the minority parties in mind when considering members for new, or expanded, committees."
	I hope that the Chairman of the Committee of Selection, my hon. Friend the Member for Blaydon, has heard me repeat those words in the Chamber this evening.

John McWilliam: May I reassure my hon. Friend that I was present to hear those words the first time, and they are always in my mind?

Ben Bradshaw: I am very grateful to my hon. Friend for that intervention.
	I would have gone on to quote from the response by the Leader of the House to the queries from the Scottish National party and Plaid Cymru on their grievances about representation on the Liaison Committee. However, Mr. Deputy Speaker, as you ruled out of order the points that were made on that matter earlier in the debate, I would imagine that you would not be too pleased if I did so now.

Mr. Deputy Speaker: indicated assent.

Ben Bradshaw: Very well, Mr. Deputy Speaker.
	In an earlier letter to the hon. Member for North Tayside back, I think, in September, my right hon. Friend the Leader of the House said that he could only address his concerns when opportunities arose in the natural flow of business. That is our desire and intention. He went on to say that he hoped that the minority parties had found the Government helpful in Standing Committees, where we have helped to engineer extra places for the smaller parties. Of course an extra Opposition day has been created for the smaller parties as well. My right hon. Friend concluded by saying that he remained alive to the hon. Gentleman's concerns.

Eric Forth: The hon. Gentleman is trying to be positive and helpful, but I am a bit worried about the phrase Xthe natural flow of business". It strikes me that it implies that, whereas the Government will try to manoeuvre something here or there and perhaps make a little concession, they will make no positive effort seriously to consider the issue to find a more permanent solution. I hope that he is saying that he will go beyond the natural flow of business and try to do something proactive.

Ben Bradshaw: With all respect, as the hon. Member for Hazel Grove has said, the Government had a good go at this—at least my right hon. Friend did—back in May, and we failed, not least because some Members, such as the right hon. Member for Bromley and Chislehurst (Mr. Forth), voted against the proposals. However, we intend to take the issue seriously. During the flow of business, positions arise on Committees and new Select Committees even come into existence, so there will be plenty of opportunities not for me—it is not my role—but for the Chairman of the Committee of Selection to take such things into consideration.

Andrew Stunell: Do I take it that the implication of the Minister's last remarks is that the Government intend to bring those proposals back to the House? That would be very much welcomed by me, and, I would have thought, by Members from the minority nationalist parties and Northern Ireland.

Ben Bradshaw: I am sorry to have to disappoint the hon. Gentleman, but it is not realistic to imagine that the Government would bring those proposals back so soon after they were defeated in such a way. I am sure that that is a great disappointment, not just to him but to many other Members who voted for those sensible proposals.
	More recently, on 17 October, in reply to a question from the hon. Member for North Tayside, my right hon. Friend the Leader of the House repeated again that he was
	Xvery much aware of the grievance of the minority parties on the question of appointments to Committees."
	He pointed out that there had been a lot of correspondence on the matter on several occasions, and that he would continue to look into a solution, adding:
	XThere will be plenty of procedural opportunities for him to make his point."—[Official Report, 17 October 2002; Vol. 390, c. 475.]
	That is exactly what the hon. Gentleman is doing this evening, as he made clear in his speech—it was not primarily about his unrealistic aim to get a place on the Committee of Selection, let alone the chairmanship of it, but to make the point that the minority or smaller parties were under-represented generally on Committees.
	If I may, I would like to disabuse the House of the idea that the smaller parties are suffering some terrible injustice. If one looks at the figures, one sees that the breakdown in relation to Members from small parties on public business Standing Order Committees, plus modernisation and House of Lords reform Committees, is as follows: Liberal Democrats, 33, official Unionists, five, Plaid Cymru, three, Scottish national party, two, Social Democratic and Labour party, one, Democratic Unionist party, one, and Independent, one. That is a total of 46. If that number were broken down with strict proportionality, the total would be 45. The number of Liberal Democrats would be 31, so one could argue that the Liberal Democrats are currently over-represented by two. There would be three official Unionists, so they are also currently over-represented by two. The Democratic Unionist party would have three members, so it is currently under-represented by two. The Scottish national party would have three, so, under strict proportionality, it is under-represented by one. Plaid Cymru would have two, so it is over-represented by one. The Social Democratic and Labour party would have two, so it is under-represented by one, and Independents would have one, which is supposed to be strictly proportional, although there is only one Independent Member, so, strictly speaking, the Independents would be eligible for only half a place.

Alex Salmond: The Minister should understand that those figures take into account the Select Committee on Northern Ireland Affairs, on which, clearly, all the Northern Irish parties must be represented. He should not therefore use that argument to distort figures elsewhere. Is he also aware that those figures include the Catering Committee, which was not our first choice in terms of Committee places?

Ben Bradshaw: I am sorry that the hon. Gentleman has that view of the Catering Committee—

Andrew Bennett: That illustrates that not all the Committees are exciting to sit on. Can the Minister give us not only the numbers on each of the Committees, but figures on the attendance on each of them?

Ben Bradshaw: I am afraid that I do not have the numbers on each of the Committees to hand. If my hon. Friend will allow me, I am happy to write to him with a breakdown of all the figures. I shall try my best to obtain figures for attendance, too, which I am sure many Members would find extremely interesting. He is absolutely right to suggest that if parties want positions on important or sexy Committees, they should also be willing to do the work on the duller, less glamorous Committees, many of which are just as important to the workings of the House and in terms of the scrutiny that they provide for Government.
	Before the intervention from the hon. Member for Banff and Buchan, I was trying to make the point that, under strict proportionality, the smaller parties are not hard done by. If anything, they are slightly over-represented on the breadth of Committees that sit in the House. That does not mean to say, as I made clear, that the Government are not sensitive to the points that have been made repeatedly this evening, which I am sure have been heard by my hon. Friend who chairs the Committee of Selection.
	Having said that, I hope that the hon. Member for North Tayside will not press his amendment to a vote, which he has indicated that he does not intend to do. I commend the motion to the House. If the amendment is pressed to a vote, I hope that the House will reject it.

Pete Wishart: I beg to ask leave to withdraw the amendment.
	Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
	Ordered,
	That Mr John Hayes be discharged from the Committee of Selection and Mr Peter Luff be added to the Committee.

Sitting suspended.

Fire Dispute

On resuming—

John Prescott: With permission, Mr. Deputy Speaker, I would like to make another statement on the fire service pay dispute. I apologise to the House for making this statement when matters are still unresolved, but the House does not sit tomorrow and I undertook to keep Members informed. The strike is still planned to take place tomorrow morning at 9 o'clock. It has not been called off, and I thought it appropriate to make a statement to the House as it is not sitting tomorrow.
	My previous statement on 14 November informed the House of the events leading up to the two-day firefighters, strike from 13 to 15 November. Since then my right hon. Friend the Minister for Local Government and the Regions and I have had numerous meetings with the Fire Brigades Union, the employers and Sir George Bain in order to bring them back to the negotiating table. The negotiations are a matter for the employers and the unions, but our latest information is that the negotiations are still continuing, as the Fire Brigades Union has just returned to them.
	The employers have released some details of their pay offer. It amounts to a pay increase of 16 per cent. over two years linked to modernisation. This would give a qualified firefighter a basic salary in the region of #25,000 a year by November 2003. It is not true to say, as many people are saying on television, that the offer is limited to 4 per cent. There have been a number of questions about funding. I have repeatedly made it clear to the House that any pay in addition to the original 4 per cent. offer has to be linked to modernisation. The independent review headed by Sir George Bain has given us the route map in its position paper published on 11 November. The full report will be available in about three weeks' time.
	I call on the Fire Brigades Union to engage constructively on the modernisation agenda. The FBU has made it clear that it wants a substantial pay increase. Sir George Bain has shown that a substantial pay increase can be funded by substantial modernisation. We want a fair deal for the firefighters, but we also want a fair deal for the public whom they serve. The House is well aware of the original 40 per cent. pay claim made by the FBU—that a claim I remind the House is still on the table. No Government could fund a pay increase on that scale. It would put at risk the economic stability that we have worked so hard to achieve.
	The knock-on effect of a settlement on the scale demanded by the FBU would be less money to invest in public services and public sector workers; it would be unfair on other groups who also do vital jobs and have accepted smaller wage increases linked to modernisation; and it would lead to higher interest rates and mortgages. I am sure that all hon. Members will join me when I say that nobody wants this strike.
	Of course, if the strike does go ahead tomorrow morning, we will do everything we can to protect public safety, based on the best operational advice from the military, police and senior fire officers. None the less, as we have always made clear, the military will be providing an emergency, not a replacement, service. We all need to be vigilant during the strike, but it is also imperative that our cover is not stretched by hoax calls. Such calls put lives at risk. Anyone found to have made a hoax call will be dealt with as quickly and severely as possible.
	In these circumstances it is the Government's responsibility to do all he can to protect public safety. Our plans will be kept under constant review. When it comes to saving lives, no option can be ruled out. Any strike by the union would be damaging and dangerous. It would put lives at risk. The two-day strike was wrong and dangerous, as I made clear at the time. An eight-day strike would be even more so.
	The 40 per cent. claim for which the FBU is fighting is unjustified. If the union is serious about resolving the matter, it should continue the talks about pay in exchange for changing outdated work practices, but it must understand that it will not get one without the other. The country must understand that the Government will not give into claims that are unreasonable and which would have had a detrimental impact on the economy. We govern for the whole country and we will exercise our responsibilities for the whole country. Our responsibilities are to the economy and to people's jobs, mortgages and living standards. Our responsibilities are to ensure the safety of the public and to prevent the unnecessary loss of life. It is that thought that has motivated me and my right hon. Friend in the past few days in our efforts to keep people talking, not walking. Lives are saved every day a strike is cancelled. Even at this late stage, I want to call on the Fire Brigades Union to continue negotiating and call off the eight-day strike due to start at 9 o'clock tomorrow morning. In the wider management of the economy, we must be fair to the factory workers, shop workers and office workers and be absolutely clear that we want an agreement between the firefighters and employers.
	We have to be fair to all—to nurses, teachers, ambulance workers and the police. We cannot and will not accept rises for firefighters that are unfair to others, so I say to the Fire Brigades Union: call off the strike, stay at the negotiating table and work out a deal that is fair to the firefighters and fair to all.
	I promise to keep the House informed. My message again to the Fire Brigades Union is talk, do not walk.

David Davis: I thank the Deputy Prime Minister for his statement and for his prior notification of it. I understand the circumstances that required it to be made quite late. May I also associate the Opposition with his call on the Fire Brigades Union to reach a settlement at this late stage?
	While we all hope that there is a last-minute settlement, it now seems extremely likely that tomorrow's strike will go ahead. It is quite simply unacceptable that people's lives should be put at risk in that way. I wish to state in the clearest possible terms that such action by the Fire Brigades Union is unnecessary, unacceptable and wrong. It is the action of the 1970s and not the 21st century. It is saddening that after months of negotiations there still remain more questions than answers with regard to this sorry dispute. However, at this late hour, our concern must focus on ensuring the safety of the public over the week ahead.
	For the next eight days, it is likely that fire cover in this country will be provided by military personnel. Last week, the Home Office Minister Lord Falconer said:
	XIf public safety ultimately requires that the Army crosses picket lines to get the red fire engines, then that is what will have to be done".
	Yesterday, the Chief of the Defence Staff said:
	XThe armed forces should not cross picket lines".
	Will the Deputy Prime Minister now clarify this issue? What is the Government's position? If there is an opportunity for Army personnel to use modern firefighting equipment, should they cross the picket line to get it or not? I also understand that the Association of Chief Police Officers has said that policemen should not cross picket lines. What is the Government's response to that?
	From the start, we have called on the Government to give the military access to modern fire engines. Last time we debated the subject, I asked the Deputy Prime Minister to make use of 400 modern reserve fire engines available around the country to train military personnel with modern equipment. We now understand that some 15 fire engines have been made available for training. That is too little, too late. What actions have been taken dramatically to increase the availability of red fire engines to military personnel? Is it true that one authority has refused to supply any reserve fire engines for use by the military, and what action is he taking to deal with that?
	The Deputy Prime Minister tells us that he is seeking an agreement with the Fire Brigades Union to ensure that it will provide assistance in the event of a major incident. We strongly support him in that and urge the Fire Brigades Union to sign that agreement tonight. Has he established any command and control responsibility to make any necessary response both rapid and effective?
	I asked him when he made his last statement about the fact that on 25 October the Attorney-General's Department wrote that it was still considering whether to use section 240 of the Trade Union and Labour Relations (Consolidation) Act 1992 to seek an injunction to stop the strike on the grounds that it put the public at risk of death or injury. Now that the risk is dramatically increased, with the likelihood of the start of an eight-day strike, is the Attorney-General going to seek an injunction tonight in the courts?
	During last week's 48-hour strike, commuters throughout London suffered disruption as a result not only of the closure of tube stations, but of unofficial stoppages by a reported 350 tube drivers. Union leaders such as Mr. Bob Crow have suggested that they may stop work again for the duration of a strike, citing health and safety issues. What action is the Deputy Prime Minister taking to ensure that that does not happen, and what he would do if it happened?
	What is the Government's position on pay? Is it, as the Prime Minister's official spokesman said, that
	Xthe envelope is sealed and it's not going to be opened"?
	Is it, as the Chancellor said, that
	Xwe would not tolerate inflationary pay settlements that undermine economic discipline"?
	Or is it, as the Deputy Prime Minister said, that the Government are
	Xquite prepared to make an exceptional case"
	for the firefighters?
	The process has been prolonged and made worse by confused and contradictory messages. The country needs clear guidance and firm government on such a critical issue.

John Prescott: I thank the right hon. Gentleman for his words of support at the beginning of his contribution. I agree, and made it clear in my statement, that any strike will mean the threat of loss of life. We are all worried about that, and we all have a responsibility, especially the Government, to ensure that that does not happen. However, we must remember that we are not yet in a strike situation. Matters are sufficiently serious for me to come to the House to say that a strike is a possibility tomorrow, but every one of us hopes that it will not happen, and that negotiations will continue and lead to an agreement. [Interruption.] Yes, there are only a few hours left, but I am trying to keep hon. Members as well informed as I can. If the House were sitting until 10 pm, perhaps we would not have to make a judgment about whether to make a statement now. However, I shall not tempt the Deputy Speaker, who has been generous in giving me an opportunity to make the statement.
	Let me deal with the right hon. Gentleman's specific points. The 400 appliances to which he referred are the total number. Some have no engines, some have no wheels and others need repairing. However, 27 are immediately available, and more than 100 extra will be available to the command structure. In some cases, there may be a better way of dealing with specific incidents.
	I remind the right hon. Gentleman that the military is worried about its soldiers and believes that the best method of training is with the simple technology on the green goddess. I am sure that he agrees that I must leave it to the judgment of the armed services. It is not therefore necessary for some invading force to go to fire stations. Several FBU members in different areas have said that the armed services can have the engines; they do not want a dispute about that.
	The amount of training that is required before the engines can be used is another constraint. It is not currently a problem, but the Prime Minister has said that we shall take whatever actions are necessary to ensure public safety. The armed services did an excellent job with just over 1,000 vehicles, compared with approximately 3,000 under normal circumstances. They dealt with all the calls. The public co-operated through reducing calls by a third, but we are generally maintaining adequate cover.
	We have already established that normal command control will apply in the emergency circumstances to which the right hon. Gentleman referred. The fire service, the military and the police will be involved in such incidents, as happens under normal circumstances.
	Hon. Members will recall that I previously failed to reach agreement with the FBU. I was therefore not prepared to make an announcement because I simply did not have an agreement. Both sides have subsequently thrashed out an agreement. The employers, the Government and the FBU support it, and it has been passed by FBU lawyers. It is waiting to be signed and, like the right hon. Gentleman, I hope that the FBU will sign it tonight.
	The right hon. Gentleman was right about the Attorney-General. I have held several meetings with him. Of course, we have discussed public interest and public safety. His responsibility is making the legal judgment, mine is to advise him about whether his actions would make it more difficult to intervene, and whether everything is being done to enable him to justify any actions to a court before which he might appear. He has the power to apply for an injunction. It is up to him to make that independent judgment. It is up to me to advise him about whether such action would inflame the dispute and make matters more difficult. At the end of the day, if such actions prolonged the strike, the threat to public safety would be even greater. It is his judgment, however, and I give him advice. It is far better to keep people talking than to seek action in the courts, because that would inflame the situation. That is not a judgment for me, however, but for the Attorney-General.
	On the union leaders, my mate Bob Crow—I am bound to say that I do not have a friendly attitude every time I hear his name—has constantly complained that everything that we do is about safety, but that is a proper concern to have. Some of the drivers' actions in relation to the fire dispute, however, were unjustified. London Underground has made that clear and there have been discussions between the Department of Transport and us on that. Let us wait and see what happens on the next occasion. The employers have made it clear that the action of certain staff was unacceptable. The people who should make judgments about safety are the members of the independent body that the House set up: the Health and Safety Commission. It is not an employer or a trade union. It makes the judgments, and it has made it clear that the services in question are safe to operate, so I hope that the union members in that industry will take that into account.
	On the right hon. Gentleman's final point about inflation and pay, what can be afforded out of the available resources is the pay offer: 4 per cent. That is what has been offered. In the agreement that I have seen—we shall have to wait to see whether it will be agreed to—that figure relates to November just gone. Next November, the firefighters would get another 3.5 per cent., so 7.5 per cent. would be funded by the authorities themselves. The dispute appears to be about something like 7 per cent. We have made it absolutely clear that any increased payment has to be connected to modernisation. The Bain report has shown that it is possible to modernise the fire service. That is our position. We do not support claims that will be inflationary, nor claims that appear to be based on the idea that people can challenge the Government and, if they are pretty tough, get away with it.

Kate Hoey: The Deputy Prime Minister will know that modernisation in the Palace of Westminster was not linked to the payment of Members of Parliament. Why cannot the fire dispute be settled by looking at pay first and, afterwards, discussing in a longer-term way the changes to practice that may be necessary, as they are in all sorts of jobs? The changes here were not linked to our pay.

John Prescott: My hon. Friend has overlooked one simple fact. We had an independent inquiry to decide the issues here, which is precisely what I wanted for the fire workers. We set up such an inquiry, despite their not wanting it. That is an essential point. The inquiry made a judgment and that is what we are trying to operate on at the moment. If my hon. Friend is saying that we should be in the situation in which the firemen say, XWhat is the worth of a fireman? We believe it is #30,000", who makes the judgment about the worth of a nurse? Does he or she walk out of the wards and use that pressure to get a pay increase? No, that is neither acceptable nor fair. Our judgment is that we have to be fair. Where there is disagreement, we appoint an inquiry. That is what we did for the MPs, and that is precisely what we have done for the firemen.

Edward Davey: We are grateful for the statement from the Deputy Prime Minister, particularly at this grave hour, and for his giving us advance notice of it, given the changing situation. While he rightly holds out a hope that, even at this late stage, the FBU will agree to some sort of deal, does he not agree that the British public will simply not understand it if the union goes ahead with the strike, given the very generous 16 per cent. pay deal that is now on the table? Does it not increasingly appear that the FBU is setting its face against real reform, and that the strikes are no longer about pay but about modernisation?
	On funding, will the right hon. Gentleman make it clear that, if the FBU had accepted the pay and reform deal offered by the employers, the Government would have been prepared to provide the necessary transitional funding both to secure the vital modernisation and to avoid these dangerous and damaging strikes? Finally, now that the police have joined the armed forces in arguing that officers should not be forced to cross picket lines, will the Deputy Prime Minister assure the House that the emergency arrangements for an eight-day strike are in place and are genuinely robust enough? Will he assure the House that the advice of the police and the military commanders will be kept under review, in case there are life-threatening situations that demand the use of equipment that is held at the fire stations?

John Prescott: It is true that the offer that has been made by the employers—we shall wait to see what comes out of the final negotiations—was, indeed, 16 per cent. That is their judgment, but I think they feel that they cannot finance all that 16 per cent. The Bain inquiry showed that the remaining part—over and above what the employers were offering—could be financed by modernisation. The union is making it clear that it does not want the modernisation on any terms. Given those circumstances, there is no argument about whether we are financing 16 per cent. or not. The union must start the process of negotiation.
	The other factor I have had to consider is that it is difficult to get accurate information from the local authority employers as to exactly what we are saving or what the costs are. That is one problem that I have had and why I asked the Bain inquiry to give me its advice. At the moment, if the FBU sets its face against the concept of modernisation and does not accept it, even though nurses, teachers and all sorts of workers have accepted it, we have to say clearly, XYou are not going to get that lump sum of money on the table without any negotiations on modernisation." As to whether the Government give anything, we have to make a judgment as to what the authorities would say. Bain tells us, XYou can save the money." I shall wait to see what comes out of their negotiations.
	We have taken all the necessary action to ensure that all the necessary measures are in place to deal with the circumstances of an eight-day strike. I shall not kid the hon. Member for Kingston and Surbiton (Mr. Davey): an eight-day strike is more difficult to deal with than one of 48 hours, but I was pleased with how the armed services reacted to the last strike. They did an excellent job and that gives me encouragement, but we have no doubt about the fact that it would be far better to have a full fire service rather than a green goddess service. That is an important point.
	As to whether the police and the Army should be crossing picket lines, they have not been asked to do that in those circumstances. I note what is in the ACPO statement tonight—the police will not be involved. I do not know how that comes about, because they were pretty well involved in the miners' strike. They did not have any arguments about that.

Kevin Hughes: May I first congratulate my right hon. Friend and my right hon. Friend the Minister for Local Government and the Regions on the time and effort that they are putting into trying to resolve the dispute?
	About this time last week, there were hints from the FBU that 16 per cent. would do it, and I went out to meet the local firefighters on the picket line in my constituency last Friday and they hinted that 16 per cent. would do it. They have now been offered that 16 per cent., which is about seven or eight times more than inflation. It is a fantastic offer. Does the Deputy Prime Minister agree that it is time for the FBU leadership to put that offer to the membership and call off the strike?

John Prescott: I must be absolutely clear about the matter of the 16 per cent. Even on the deal being discussed at the moment, the local authorities say that they cannot fund it. During the negotiations earlier in the year, those authorities made it clear that they had no money and would not advance beyond their initial offer. In this deal, they have made a 16 per cent. offer, but they are making it clear that they cannot afford it. We have made it clear that any extra moneys that have to be found over and above the resources available to the authorities must be found through modernisation.
	We have not adopted any position on the agreement—we will have to wait and see what comes out—but it should be clear that anything over and above what the local authorities have the resources to fund must be financed out of modernisation. All the fire people should consider the truth of that, because there is an awful lot of news manipulation going on. One reason why I am giving this advice to the House is that people who were watching the television would think that 4 per cent. was all that had been offered, although the negotiations were still going on. That seems to be a sophisticated manipulation of news.
	I hope that the people in the fire union take into account all that is being offered before they arrive at their judgment.

Alan Duncan: Even if there is some modernisation, there is no way that that will immediately convert into the hard cash necessary to pay for higher salaries, and the Deputy Prime Minister should stop hiding behind that myth and pretending that the Bain report says that modernisation will deliver the money. The Chancellor has said that he is not prepared to pay either, so what calculation has the Deputy Prime Minister made of the average council tax increase needed to pay for each additional 1 per cent. in firefighters' pay?

John Prescott: I do not have to make that calculation, because I will accept what George Bain has said. He has done a thorough report, and his final report comes out in three weeks. I hope that the hon. Gentleman has read the report. He will see in the appendices that Bain highlights the changes that are necessary to make. There is an important distinction to be made here. His offer was over two years—whatever period is offered is an important negotiating factor—but basically he has shown clearly that that amount of money can be saved to pay for this kind of deal. He said, XDo all this modernisation, pay 4 per cent. to begin with and then pay 7 per cent." That is how he advocated the 11 per cent. agreement. I do not have to look in the crystal ball; I look at the inquiry. That is why we set it up and we have its recommendation.

John McDonnell: I thank the Deputy Prime Minister for keeping the House informed. I apologise for missing his previous statements; I know he was anxious about that, being fastidious about my concern.
	During the week the FBU has moved dramatically on both pay and modernisation. Only this evening, it has clearly stated its willingness to negotiate on shift patterns. The employers have also moved. I think we breathed a sigh of relief today in the hope that the 16 per cent. offer would materialise and resolve the dispute, but the employers said this morning that even their modernisation proposals would not produce the money to fund that offer. There is a budget gap, and, as the employers' leader said this morning, another partner is needed in the negotiations—the Government.
	The union has moved. The employers have moved. The employers have said that even the Bain proposals will not cover the costs of the dispute. They—

Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order. The hon. Gentleman must put a succinct question rather than engaging in a peroration.

John McDonnell: Let me finish the question, then. If the unions and the employers have moved, why cannot the Government move?

John Prescott: I thank my hon. Friend for what he had to say. He was the man who called for me to apologise for misleading the House. What he said was totally untrue, as he would have found if he had checked the facts with the trade union or anyone else. We did not interfere with the deal earlier, as I told the House. I note that my hon. Friend did not apologise for what he said, but I want to put it on record.
	As for whether the union has moved, it has not withdrawn its 40 per cent. claim. There is a lot of talk in the papers that it might accept 16 per cent. or 20 per cent. That is a good basis for negotiation, but, whatever is in the papers, I do not know what the union will finally settle for. I shall wait and see. I hear what the union says to me about modernisation, however. It says that it does not want to deal with change in the rigid shift system, that it does not want a block on full-time firefighters' working with their retained colleagues, that it is against using defibrillators and that it is against a ban on joint control rooms. What I find odd is that some brigades in some areas are already doing those things. Why is this such a matter of principle for the unions nationally? Why can they not accept practices that already taking place in some parts of the country? In fact, I do not ask them to accept those practices, but will they please start negotiating? That is all I ask. Negotiating is far better than walking away and increasing the risk to our citizens. Modernisation is the key, and the basis on which I will make a judgment.

Patrick McLoughlin: The Deputy Prime Minister said a few moments ago that the police had had no problems crossing the picket line during the miners' strike. That is wholly inaccurate, and I hope he will withdraw the slur on the police. The police ensured that those who wanted to cross a picket line in order to go about their lawful business could do so. The slur that the Deputy Prime Minister has cast is unworthy of his office.
	How has the Deputy Prime Minister enabled the situation to reach this stage, given that most firemen do not know what is being offered to them at this moment?

John Prescott: I am sorry that I cannot tell the House exactly what has been agreed and what is on offer, although statements have been made by various people on television. I told the House at the outset that I did not know the facts, but I thought it wanted to be reassured about what we are doing to deal with the strike that may occur tomorrow. I always promised the House that I would keep it informed, and that is what I am trying to do.
	I cannot provide all the information that I would like to provide, and I am sorry about that, but let me make one thing clear. The question relating to the police was whether they had authority to enforce the law. I referred to the miners because in that instance they were trying to enforce the law, although it might have been controversial. I suppose that if anyone had to go into fire stations and remove vehicles, the police would follow the same principles despite the difficult circumstances. What they would probably not want to do is drive the vehicles out themselves, which they would not normally be expected to do. I am sure that those who did so in such circumstances—although to my mind it would be completely unnecessary—would have the protection of the law.

Donald Anderson: My right hon. Friend has rightly said some very strong things about hoax callers who anger the public, and who can only add to the enormous dangers. Is he satisfied with the sentencing powers available to the courts, and will he try to ensure that the message goes out loudly to sentencers that some exemplary sentences would be a very good thing, and very popular with the public?

John Prescott: There are difficulties with this issue, and we have referred to them on other occasions. We wholly condemn hoax callers, and hopefully the number of such calls might fall off in the next few days—if there is a strike.
	On enforcement, the courts have plenty of powers to deal with such incidents. In one incident that was referred to—it may have been in Scotland—the person responsible was found immediately, but he was released on bail for three or four weeks while reports were compiled. Perhaps all of us felt that such an opportunity should have been denied by opposing bail, thereby showing that the offence was considered serious. The powers exist, and magistrates and court authorities should take note that we believe this to be a serious matter even under normal circumstances, but that, under these extraordinary circumstances, they should be tougher.

Peter Luff: The Deputy Prime Minister referred frequently to soldiers and the Army during his statement. Occasionally, he corrected himself by referring to the armed services, but will he remind the House that the Navy, in particular, is making a significant contribution during this dispute? Increased pressures, cancellation of leave, uncertainty, the compromising of operational objectives—such as those of the south Atlantic patrol ship, which is moored in Portsmouth, rather than protecting the Falkland Islands—and the protection of the public demand that the Government do more than is being done, to judge by the answer given to my right hon. Friend the Member for Haltemprice and Howden (David Davis), to ensure that the armed services have access to proper firefighting equipment.

John Prescott: I certainly do not want to give the impression that I am unaware of the situation. The hon. Gentleman is right to say that I did stray into referring to the Army, and that the armed services in general are involved. I properly record this House's appreciation of the work that they have done. [Hon. Members: XHear, hear."] Although less than 10 per cent. of the forces are involved, that is still quite important. We have heard the comments of defence spokesmen, and we will seek to strike a proper balance to meet the requirements of our armed forces. We are extremely grateful for their help during the circumstances of a firefighters' strike. There is no doubt that they are under stress and strain, but on meeting them they come across as remarkably cheerful and committed to helping communities. That is what we have always come to expect from our armed services, along with giving effective military assistance when called on to do so. They enjoy the confidence of this House, and we are grateful for their actions.

Dennis Skinner: Does my right hon. Friend agree that most strikes are finally settled around a negotiating table? There have been a few exceptions, but generally speaking that is what matters. Does he also agree that, while Bain has put forward some important modernisation proposals, the union could well come forward with modernisation proposals of its own? In fact, it already has done so, and although those proposals have not been costed yet, they could be. Is he aware, for instance, that in Derbyshire a pilot scheme already exists, through which the ambulance station and the fire station operate together? Let us assume that that could be rolled out nationally. Would that be advantageous, and could it be costed? If the union's own modernisation schemes—I hope that he will answer this point—which have already been tried in certain parts of Britain, were rolled out, could that be a part-solution to the problem?

John Prescott: My hon. Friend makes some very sensible points. I encouraged the union to bring its modernisation proposals to the table, and it did so. However, I should point out that the proposals involve expanding the service, using more modern engines, and going out into the community to explain how to reduce fire risk. Those are the things that a modern service should properly be doing, but that does little to address the question of conditions of work and the delivery of service. Both issues have to be addressed, and the various proposals on modernisation—including the FBU's alternative proposals—need to come together. The issue is not just about wages and conditions; it is about having a modern emergency service that meets the requirements of communities. Both aspects should be very much to the fore.
	I note with interest that a pilot scheme in my hon. Friend's area puts together the fire service, the ambulance service and the police in a common control room. The FBU is totally opposed to that because it does not consider it modern practice. Curiously enough, during such strikes we do have a common control room, which works very well. If the FBU cannot accept that proposal, the least that it could do is to negotiate on it.

Michael Weir: The Deputy Prime Minister spoke earlier about sophisticated news management. Coming from a new Labour Minister, that was a bit rich. There is now utter confusion about figures. In the course of the statement, the House has heard mention of 4 per cent., 7.5 per cent. and 16 per cent. The Deputy Prime Minister told the hon. Member for West Derbyshire (Mr. McLoughlin) that he was not sure what was on the table. Will he confirm what is being offered? Are the employers willing to offer 16 per cent? What would the Government contribute to settle the strike?

John Prescott: The hon. Gentleman has clearly not been reading much about the situation. We all agree that the FBU, in Scotland as well as England, is asking for 16 per cent. That has not changed. Bain proposed that 11 per cent. could be paid, with modernisation. The employers have come up with various proposals. The one currently on the table is for 16 per cent., under certain circumstances. That is why the figures differ.
	I try to give the House as much information as possible. I arrived at a figure of 7.5 per cent. in the following way: the 4 per cent. will be for one year, 2002; another 3.5 per cent. has been agreed as the annual payment, with the remainder to be paid for by modernisation. In those circumstances, that takes us up to 16 per cent. We must therefore ensure that whatever agreement is arrived at is agreed by both parties.
	I have just been given a note, the latest report from the front. It says that the offer is still 4 per cent., according to the FBU general secretary, that the strike is almost certainly on, but that the general secretary's telephone will be on all night. In any case, I hope that both sides keep talking and find agreement. If they do not, I have made clear my view about how to deal with the matter.

Peter Pike: Does my right hon. Friend agree that strikes never solve any problems? Should not a simple message be sent to the firefighters to the effect that, regardless of the varying degrees of sympathy and support that have been expressed in the House, they should call off the strike? They should negotiate, and settle the dispute at around 16 per cent., with modernisation. Is not that the way forward? Should not that be the united message from the House to all firefighters?

John Prescott: I am grateful to my hon. Friend, although I hesitate about saying that strikes do not have a role or that they cannot influence some situations. The sad fact is that strikes will not always be won on the day that they commence. There is nothing wonderful about striking and losing after a period of time. It is far better to have an inquiry and an intelligent discussion, with both sides trying to come together in agreement.
	I repeat that the employers are offering 16 per cent., which I believe should be paid for through modernisation. If a strike is called, it will be about modernisation, not pay.

John Randall: The news is clearly desperately disappointing. I hope that, even now, the FBU will retreat from the brink and consult its rank and file membership, as other hon. Members have suggested. The Deputy Prime Minister will be aware that, if the strike goes ahead, it will cover a weekend for which many public events will have been organised. Will the right hon. Gentleman's Department, or any other, give advice to the organisers of public events, and to those who might wish to attend them?

John Prescott: We first gave advice about public events in relation to Guy Fawke's night, 5 November, and the weekend either side. We are concerned about that matter. We have a public information campaign and are giving advice to all bodies involved in events. We will continue to do so, even under the circumstances that I have described.

Harry Barnes: We will never reach a settlement if we follow the proposals of the Opposition. That will lead only to the destruction of all contending parties in the dispute. Does my right hon. Friend agree that the best hope is to hold negotiations that involve him and the FBU directly? Should he not pick up the telephone tonight, and have a discussion about modernisation as well as pay? As well as the Bain proposals, the FBU has its own proposals that could be developed, extended and worked out.

John Prescott: I understand what my hon. Friend says, but neither the FBU general secretary nor I have been slow in picking up the phone and talking. Many exchanges have gone on. The difficulty is no longer one of communication, but of accepting that modernisation should be part of any agreement. The union has made it clear that it should not, and it has rejected—savagely and, in my view, wrongly—the results of the independent inquiry held by Bain. The way to settle the dispute is to have the will to do so and to sit around the table. I was pleased that the Fire Brigades Union came back to the negotiating table because ultimately it has to be settled by talking, not walking.

Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order. In this evolving situation, I imagine that the Deputy Prime Minister needs to be back in his office to keep in touch. I propose to call two more hon. Members from either side.

Eric Forth: On a point of order, Mr. Deputy Speaker. Could you clarify the status of this sitting to the House, since we are now past the time when the House was scheduled to sit without passing a resolution to that effect? Could you confirm, therefore, that there is no necessary limit to the time during which the House can sit at this stage? Could you also confirm that it would be possible for you to suspend the sitting yet further to allow the Deputy Prime Minister to come back at, say, 10 o'clock, as he indicated he would like to do, to bring the House up to date on further developments? Could you confirm that all those things are perfectly possible, Mr. Deputy Speaker?

Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order. The Deputy Prime Minister sought my permission in this particular case—I think that Mr. Speaker may have heard it first but it was confirmed by me—that a statement should be made to bring the House up to date at what nevertheless was an awkward time. It is always possible for other requests to be received, but it may be for the convenience of the House and the better conduct of negotiations of national interest if the Deputy Prime Minister is performing his official duties other than simply those of this House. He has come to the House to report on the dispute but he may have other responsibilities in connection with it that he has to pursue. Therefore, I think it appropriate that at some reasonable point, the proceedings on this statement are terminated.

David Davis: Further to that point of order, Mr. Deputy Speaker. A significant point arose during the course of the Deputy Prime Minister's responses. He made the clear point earlier that the Attorney-General did not want to intervene for as long as the negotiation was going on. He has now indicated to the House that those negotiations have come to an end, whatever Mr. Gilchrist has said about his telephone still being on. Is it possible for the Solicitor-General to come to the House and give us her view on a material matter in this dispute?

Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order. Which Ministers come to the House is a matter for them and not for the Chair. I do not believe that it would be for the convenience of the House or the people who serve us for the sitting to be suspended to an indefinite time. I cannot believe that that is right. The Deputy Prime Minister has come to the House at the last possible moment before we suspend for the weekend, and I think that that is a reasonable balance. I now propose to take two hon. Members from either side before we move on to the next business.

Patrick Cormack: In agreeing with most of what the right hon. Gentleman said, may I ask him to clarify the position regarding the Bain report? He quoted from it a number of times with approval, and one agrees with that, but then said that it will not be available for three weeks. What, precisely, will not be available for three weeks and what, precisely, is available now?

John Prescott: I am sorry if I misled the House on that. The Bain inquiry will, I hope, give its full report in mid-December. On 5 November I asked whether, in view of the circumstances, it could produce another report to take the threatened strike into account. Sir George Bain produced a position paper on where modernisation could be introduced, saving resources and paying towards the modernisation of the fire service. The final report will be available in mid-December.

Robert Wareing: Does my right hon. Friend realise that the public will be mystified that the Government cannot make at least some financial contribution towards the settlement of the dispute, particularly when they believe that the Government are preparing to spend God knows how many billions of pounds on a war in Iraq?

John Prescott: Perhaps I can let my hon. Friend into a secret—they are using public money. It is called the local financial settlement, and is used in the 4 per cent. deal. As for whether any more resources should be available, I have made it absolutely clear that that has to be linked to modernisation. I do not think that the public are in any doubt about that—nurses, teachers and doctors have all gone along with various modernisation proposals to get their wages. They do not believe that it would be right just to give the money to the Fire Brigades Union without any conditions.

Graham Brady: What steps has the right hon. Gentleman taken to ensure that modern appliances, with trained crews and modern rescue equipment, are available in all our major urban centres and adjacent to all our main transport facilities and transport routes?

John Prescott: As I said, even with the extra facilities of about 120 appliances, we shall not have the 3,000 vehicles that are available for normal service. We are ensuring that every region has a number of those vehicles; it will then be up to the emergency control centres to decide where and how they are sent, so I leave that to their good judgment.

Lynne Jones: When MPs' salaries were reviewed, a thorough analysis was undertaken of the way in which our jobs had changed by contrast with comparative professions. I have read the Bain interim report and it is clear that no such analysis has been undertaken of the fundamental element of the firefighters' claim. We all want the strike to be called off, even at this late hour. The firefighters have moved. Is it not time that the employers were allowed to move from the 4 per cent. now, take it or leave it position?

John Prescott: Let me make it clear: the employers' resources have to cover all local authority workers—I know that my hon. Friend will be extremely concerned about all such workers in her constituency—who have just settled for a two-year deal of less than 4 per cent. a year. Would they not feel angry if 40 per cent. was given to the firefighters without an agreement? The nurses' agreement will soon take place. There will be all sorts of agreements and my hon. Friend will fight for each of them, but she is not paying for them. We have to find a solution.

David Heath: On a point of order, Mr. Deputy Speaker. I seek your guidance on the vexed question of written ministerial statements, yet again. Today, the Order Paper included notice of a ministerial statement from the Parliamentary Secretary, Lord Chancellor's Department, who is in the Chamber this evening. The statement is brief. It states:
	XMy right hon. and noble Friend the Lord Chancellor has today announced that he has placed copies of the Codes of Practice under sections 45 and 46 of the Freedom of Information Act 2000 in the Libraries of both Houses."
	That is not true. The Library knows nothing of those codes of practice. That is not a satisfactory procedure for the Department and it is hardly in line with freedom of information. Is there anything that you can do to assist, Mr. Deputy Speaker?

Mr. Deputy Speaker: The hon. Gentleman may not have noticed the ruling given by Mr. Speaker yesterday. Mr. Speaker pointed out that the statements
	Xhave only to be printed in Hansard. That is the rule."—[Official Report, 20 November 2002; Vol. 394, c. 646.]
	The basis of the hon. Gentleman's question appears to be incorrect.

David Heath: Further to that point of order, I am grateful to you, Mr. Deputy Speaker. My argument is not that the statement was made incorrectly—it was available in the Library and will indeed be printed in Hansard; it is that it is an incorrect statement because it says that something has been placed in the Library but it has not. Given that the matter relates to freedom of information, that seems most unfortunate.

Mr. Deputy Speaker: If the statement has been printed in Hansard, it should be available in the Library. If it is not available, that should be examined. I am sure that the hon. Gentleman's point has been heard. We are in the early days of these written statements and I hope that some of these little difficulties can be overcome quickly.

Barry Gardiner: On a point of order, Mr. Deputy Speaker. I seek your guidance. In the course of the statement that we have just heard, the shadow Leader of the House and the right hon. Member for Haltemprice and Howden (David Davis) made points of order. Will you advise the House, Mr. Deputy Speaker, whether it is proper to make a point of order during a statement?

Mr. Deputy Speaker: I accepted the point of order because it was obviously connected with the statement that was taking place at the time.

SUTTON COLDFIELD MAGISTRATES COURT

Motion made, and Question proposed, That this House do now adjourn.—[Mr. Ainger.]

Andrew Mitchell: I am grateful to the House and to Mr. Speaker for giving me this opportunity to raise the grave concerns felt in my constituency and throughout north Birmingham about the possible closure of Sutton Coldfield magistrates court. I record my thanks to the Parliamentary Secretary, Lord Chancellor's Department and her officials for the courteous way in which they have dealt with me during the past two months. They met me some months ago to discuss how the matter could be resolved. The Minister also generously gave her time last week to meet a delegation from Birmingham, and she is responding to this debate. I understand that she is to be congratulated on winning an award today as the Minister to watch. I certainly congratulate her on that, and assure her that she will be watched most carefully in Sutton Coldfield and north Birmingham as she tries to conclude this matter.
	With the permission of the House authorities, Madam Deputy Speaker, I hope on Tuesday 3 December to table a petition signed by no fewer than 5,000 people from north Birmingham. That, too, underlines the gravity of the matter as viewed from north Birmingham. The signatures on the petition were collected extremely rapidly, and I pay tribute in particular to the Sutton Coldfield Observer, one of our two local newspapers, which recently won the national award of the best free newspaper of the year. I congratulate it on the staunch stand that it has taken in defence of this most important local interest.
	In Birmingham the political establishment agrees on almost nothing, and there are divisions within the political groups on almost everything that one can imagine. It is true that there are no divisions among Conservative Members of Parliament in Birmingham, but that, alas, is because I am the only one who represents the Birmingham conurbation—at the moment. However, I am tonight supported by the hon. Member for Birmingham, Erdington (Mr. Simon), and I am most grateful to him. On this matter he is certainly my hon. Friend, and I will even forgive him for his rude article about my constituents in The Spectator. I should advise hon. Members with long memories that, as they may recall, The Spectator is a somewhat faded coffee-table publication with a good wine column towards the back.
	All nine of the hard-working Sutton Coldfield councillors, and those throughout Birmingham city council, are unanimously opposed to the proposal to close Sutton Coldfield magistrates court. Such utter unanimity of view is unheard of. The council is the paying authority, hence its appeal to the Lord Chancellor's Department.
	I have read the many debates that have taken place on court closures, and I fully understand the Minister's position tonight. She cannot say very much, but I hope that she will be able to tell us a little about the process of the appeal, and in particular how long she anticipates that it will take before she and her officials will be able to pronounce judgment, and whether any more written evidence for our case would be helpful to her Department.
	Debates have been secured by the hon. Members for Braintree (Mr. Hurst) and for Kingston and Surbiton (Mr. Davey) and my hon. Friend the Member for Westbury (Dr. Murrison), all of whom raised the same important matters in respect of their areas. Each case bears some similarity to the one that I am putting, but I believe that the case for keeping the Sutton Coldfield court open is much stronger than those that the House has previously heard.
	The proposal by the West Midlands magistrates courts committee to close the court in Sutton Coldfield is a dreadful mistake, and I hope that the debate will play a part in convincing the Minister of that view. Accompanied by the hon. Member for Birmingham, Erdington, representatives of the local bench and Birmingham city council, and Her Majesty's coroner for Birmingham and Solihull, I recently met the Minister, as I said, to outline the objections to the proposed closure. The meeting was useful and demonstrated the widespread cross-party support for the court and against the committee's proposal.
	The current courthouse was built in 1956 and was refurbished and extended in the 1980s. It is adjacent to the police station and the many other offices and bodies that serve the infrastructure of a court location. Since the 1980s, almost nothing has been spent on routine redecoration or cyclical maintenance, so that today it is accepted that the court needs work to improve its appearance, but the basic fabric of the building is sound.
	The committee has cited that chronic lack of investment as a reason for regarding the courthouse as unsuitable. Yet the committee is the body responsible for determining which buildings receive investment over the years. By consistently withholding money for maintenance, it has ensured that the building appears neglected. It is 11 years since it was repainted, yet the committee rejected out of hand an informal offer from the local magistrates to provide their labour to repaint areas of the court, if the committee would just provide the paint. It says something about the character and commitment of those in our local magistracy that they should have made that offer and sought to proceed in that way.
	In the summer of this year, some #250,000 was spent on providing new cell accommodation at the rear of the existing courthouse. Those new cells, together with the new interview room facilities for solicitors and new kitchen facilities, greatly improve the utility of the existing courthouse. I have today accepted an invitation formally to open those enhancements to Sutton Coldfield's court facilities.
	There is already a ramp and a lift providing access to the courthouse, and the Lord Chancellor's Department has allocated funds for the works necessary for building compliance. So the basic structure of the courthouse is sound, even though, as I have said, some redecoration is long overdueand it has been withheld by those who now claim that the appearance of the building is a reason to close it.
	It has been argued that because the courthouse is situated in Sutton Coldfield but serves around 100,000 people in the north Birmingham area, there is some mismatch between those who form the bench and those to whom they dispense justice. However, the truth is that the bench is drawn from all parts of the community that it serves. The magistrates are drawn both from the leafiest parts of Sutton Coldfield and from the more deprived parts of the adjoining area. The bench is well balanced, and there is no evidence to support the contention that somehow the toffs of Sutton are dispensing justice to the poor of the wider area.
	The hon. Member for Birmingham, Erdington (Mr. Simon)he hopes to catch your eye in a moment, Madam Deputy Speakerand I are not presenting a partisan case, but a case for retaining that courthouse in north Birmingham. Sutton Coldfield magistrates court extends its administration far beyond Sutton Coldfield, taking in Erdington, Castle Vale and Kingstanding, making it in reality a court centre covering nearly a third of Britain's second city.
	It is perfectly clear that for many years that courthouse has been a court centre based in Sutton Coldfield; it is not just Sutton Coldfield's court. Birmingham is the largest metropolitan council area in Britain. It is four times the size of most metropolitan borough councils, so it makes no sense to close down a court that currently handles a third of the city's work load.
	There is no problem with recruiting magistrates to serve on the bench in Sutton Coldfield, and it is exceedingly uncommon for a case to be heard by only two magistrates, rather than the normal three. That contrasts markedly with the situation in the existing magistrates court in central Birmingham, where it has been a common occurrence for only two magistrates to sit. The existing courts in central Birmingham already constitute the largest courts centre in Europe.
	Approximately half those currently serving as magistrates in Sutton Coldfield have said that if the courthouse were closed, they would not be willing to serve in central Birmingham. That would represent a loss of about 60 experienced magistrates. A loss on that scale will undoubtedly increase the frequency of cases for which only two magistrates are available. The loss of the court will have a profound effect on recruitment to the magistracy.
	The five courts at Sutton Coldfield currently operate at around 88 per cent. of their theoretical capacity, compared with a target of 80 per cent. set by the West Midlands magistrates courts committee. I believe that that shows that the arguments about the efficient use of resources are specious. Sutton Coldfield's courthouse deals efficiently with a large number of cases. Each year some 15,000 cases are heard in Sutton Coldfield. Hon. Members will therefore appreciate that not only 15,000 defendants, but more than 15,000 witnesses, solicitors and people from all the other court agencies attend the courthouse. Any proposal to add to the number of people heading for central Birmingham runs contrary to the policies of the Government and Birmingham city council, which aim to reduce the number of journeys made into the already overcrowded city centre, but the potential to add to the traffic congestion is not the only issue.
	One feature of the current justice system that the Government say they deem important is that
	XMagistrates are drawn from the local community and it is a great strength of the justice system that members of the community in which defendants and victims live are engaged in its delivery.
	I quote from the Parliamentary Secretary's letter, entitled XJustice for All. It would be a tragedy if we lost that fundamental connection in north Birmingham.
	The city of Birmingham is home to about 1 million people. It cannot by any stretch of the imagination be seen as a single homogenous community. It contains many separate and distinct communities, one of which lives north of the M6 and is currently served by the Sutton Coldfield magistrates court. As I am sure that the hon. Member for Birmingham, Erdington will explain, his constituents do not look towards the centre of Birmingham, and there is a strong feeling throughout our communitiesand much wider than thatthat the court should remain in Sutton Coldfield.
	The concept of local justice is one of the cornerstones of the magistracy, and it is threatened by proposals to close successful, efficiently run local courts. The specific proposal to build some super-courthouse in central Birmingham, on a site yet to be publicly identified, at a cost that therefore cannot be known, seems to fly in the face of both logic and the Minister's statement, which I quoted a moment ago. At our recent meeting with the Minister, Her Majesty's coroner for Birmingham and Solihull, Mr. Aidan Cotter, made clear his desire to hold weekly sittings in Sutton Coldfield. That desire is based on his recognition that those attending his court would face much less inconvenience and distress if they did not have the added burden of travelling into the city centre.
	The existing courthouse in central Birmingham is a grade 1 listed building. It is, I understand, incapable of being expanded to cope with the proposed closure of the Sutton Coldfield court, and is itself in need of works to improve its efficiency. What would the future of that building be were the proposals to proceed? It cannot house more courts, it is not well suited to the technological age in which we live, and it is proposed that its use as a courthouse should cease. Is it to stand mothballedand at what recurring cost? I know that that is of some concern to Birmingham city council.
	The proposal to close Sutton Coldfield's court has met with widespread opposition, not only from local magistrates, Crown Prosecution Service staff who work in Sutton, the police, the youth offending team, solicitors, social services and Birmingham city council, but from nearly 5,000 local residents who have signed the petition to the House that I mentioned earlier.
	I urge the Minister to promote local justice and keep Sutton Coldfield's magistrates court open, to cut through the inadequate and often specious arguments of the West Midlands magistrates courts committee, to reject a private finance initiative proposal that is, by common consent, seriously flawed, to hear the unanimous voice of our communities across north Birmingham, to deploy wisdom and judgment in the exercise of her office today, and to throw out such an intellectually inadequate case, which, if accepted, would do such damage to the efficient and effective administration of justice in the north Birmingham area. 7.52 pm

Si�n Simon: I am grateful to you for your indulgence, Madam Deputy Speaker, as I am to the hon. Member for Sutton Coldfield (Mr. Mitchell) and the Minister for their generosity with their time.
	I shall not detain the House long. The hon. Member for Sutton Coldfield has said pretty much everything that I would have wanted to sayand, I am sure, with far greater eloquence and insight. He mentioned the Minister's accolade of today. Unlike himI fear that he was rudely snubbed by the hon. Member for Henley (Mr. Johnson), who is the editor of The Spectator, and not invited to witness the Minister's great occasionI was fortunate to be on a table almost directly at her feet as she graciously accepted the first in what will no doubt be a long line of such awards over the years.
	My primary purpose in attending the debate is simply to associate myself and my constituents with everything that the hon. Member for Sutton Coldfield has said. This is a truly unique example not just of consensus but of universal agreement across the board. My constituents in Erdington have little love or affection for his constituents in Sutton, whom even he described as toffs. Perhaps I should not describe them as he described them in the meeting the other dayit was an appellation that they would have liked, but which would do little to endear them to my constituents.
	As far as I can ascertain, every Birmingham MP, every councillor in my constituencyand, I believe, in that of the hon. Gentlemanall the groups on Birmingham city council and all the thousands of petitioners whom he wishes to bring to the House in a couple of weeks, are unanimous in their opposition to the plan. I have not met a single human being in Birmingham who supports the closure of Sutton Coldfield magistrates court.
	As the hon. Gentleman pointed out, we have had meetings with my hon. Friend the Minister. She has heard the arguments already and he has elucidated them with great verve. I will not go on, but merely wish to reiterate that there is a fundamental misconception in the proposals, which were obviously drafted by someone who does not know or understand the city. In the administration of the court system my constituency is classed as being in Birmingham whereas the hon. Gentleman's constituency is not, so the assumption was made that it would be more natural for my constituents and those in surrounding constituencies to look inwards towards the city centre rather than outwards towards Sutton Coldfield. As the representative of those people, and having grown up in those communities, I assure the House that that assumption is wrong. We do not look towards the centre. We would much prefer to go to court in Sutton Coldfield than to be taken to court in the city centre.
	Another issue arose in the meeting that my hon. Friend the Minister kindly granted us. She said that local justice was about justice by one's peers. Of course, it is. If she gained the sense that the toffs in Sutton Coldfield adjudicate over the less toff-like people in Erdington, we want to dispel that impression. As the hon. Gentleman has explained, that is not the demographic case. Even if that absurd notion were true, it would still not deal with the point about local justice. Local justice and judgment by one's peers must ultimately involve the notion that the local people in our communitiesnot the Lord Chancellor's Department or the West Midlands magistrates courts committeeshould be able to decide by whom we are judged. As the hon. Gentleman said, and as my hon. Friend knows, we want to be judged by magistrates sitting on the bench in Sutton Coldfield, not in a super-court in the city centre.

Yvette Cooper: I congratulate the hon. Member for Sutton Coldfield (Mr. Mitchell) on securing this debate on the proposal by the West Midlands magistrates courts committee to close Sutton Coldfield magistrates court. I thank him and my hon. Friend the Member for Birmingham, Erdington (Mr. Simon) for their kind remarks. They are much appreciated. I am sorry that I cannot take them into account when deciding the future of the courthouse.
	I listened carefully to the issues that have been raised. I welcomed the chance to meet them and representatives from their constituencies to discuss the issues and their concerns. They have made passionate speeches on behalf of their constituents and about their concern at the proposal of the West Midlands magistrates courts committee. The hon. Member for Sutton Coldfield said that he understood the current situation whereby the committee has made the proposal to shut Sutton Coldfield magistrates court. However, I cannot comment in detail at this stage on the points raised.
	Hon. Members will know that magistrates courts are managed by locally based magistrates courts committees, as set out in the provisions of the Justices of the Peace Act 1997. Each committee is responsible for the efficient and effective administration of the magistrates courts in its area. Decisions to close magistrates courts are also the responsibility of MCCs after consultation with the local paying authority.
	In the case of Sutton Coldfield magistrates court, West Midlands MCC made a determination on 19 August 2002 to close it and to transfer the work to a new courthouse in Birmingham. That decision was reached after a period of consultation with both the paying authority and a wide variety of stakeholders. The paying authority concerned, Birmingham city council, lodged an appeal with the Lord Chancellor's Department on 19 September. It is common for MCCs to consult more widely than the local paying authority, which is the local council. Consultees usually include the magistrates, staff, the police, the probation service, the Crown Prosecution Service, MPs and other professional users.
	The role for Ministers is as an appellate authority in the event of an appeal being lodged. Ministers do not decide on court closures that are not subject to appeal. Birmingham city council has lodged an appeal and I will need to consider it on the merits of the case presented by each party. The decision will come to Ministers when the dialogue between West Midlands MCC, Birmingham city council and officials in the Department has ended and all parties to the appeal are satisfied that they have made their representations and that their case is complete. Given that the appeal process is ongoing, I cannot comment on specific issues relating to the proposed closure because Ministers are the sole appellate authority.
	The hon. Member for Sutton Coldfield asked about the time scale. I cannot give a certain answer. As I said, the dialogue has to be completed first. Once everyone has made their representations, officials will need to draw those together and make a recommendation. I may also need to ask other questions and seek further information when I receive that advice. For that reason, I do not want to give him misleading guidance about the time scale in which the decision will be made.
	I am keen to ensure that I hear the fullest possible representations from everyone concerned before I make a decision. I also need to ensure that I hear the full views of the West Midlands magistrates courts committee too. The meeting with hon. Members and their constituency representatives was useful and I listened carefully to the points raised today. In particular, it was interesting to hear their responses to many of the questions that I raised at the meeting on the issues discussed then. They are welcome to make further representations before the final decision is taken.

Andrew Mitchell: I am listening carefully to the Minister's helpful comments. She says that it is part of the duty of the West Midlands magistrates courts committee to take into account the views of a wide range of stakeholders and people who have an interest. As part of her appellate role, will she establish to her satisfaction that it really did take into account the views of all the different stakeholders? Apart from those who have a direct interest in the decision, I cannot discover any stakeholders who have approved of it.

Yvette Cooper: I can assure the hon. Gentleman that I will take into account the views of all stakeholders, and shall certainly seek information on whose views were sought and what they were.
	I want to make a few general remarks about the issues that need to be taken into account when magistrates courts committees make such decisions and when appeals are made to Ministers. Much has been said about local justice. It is important that people are judged effectively by their peers. Magistrates who consider a case in a particular area should, where possible, live or work there too. We need to be realisticlocal justice cannot and does not mean having a courtroom on every street corner. Magistrates courts committees must balance many complex considerations when making decisions. Geographic access is one important factor to be taken into account. Others include disability access and facilities for witnesses and victims, the lack of which can hinder justice and access to it. For example, victims or witnesses may be intimidated if they do not have sufficiently separate facilities. MCCs must also ensure that they deliver the best combination of services for the entire area within their budget and provide value for money.
	We are keen to look at closer working between the court service and MCCs on the use of courthouses, particularly on sharing facilities, where feasible, to ensure the better use of the estate and value for money. Sharing courthouses can often support local justice in areas where, without shared facilities, family courts or magistrates courts could be under pressure.Hon. Members may be aware of the way in which funding works for MCCs. Central Government provide 80 per cent. of their revenue grant and the local authority contributes 20 per cent. MCCs are given an annual allocation, but it is left to each one to determine how best to use the funds to provide services, including the effective and efficient management of courthouses in their area.
	As I have set out, a series of issues need to be taken into account by MCCs when making decisions about the use of courthouses and allocations in their areas; Ministers need to consider a wide range of issues when those decisions come before them. As I hope that I have made clear, I shall consider seriously the points made by hon. Members this evening, as well as those they have made in meetings with me. I shall also consider the points made when I met the local coroner, the chairman of the bench and local councillors. I shall consider closely the views of the West Midlands magistrates courts committee and any other relevant points that are made. It is important that the right decision is made, and I hope that people will bear with me as I consider carefully their arguments. I shall keep in touch with them as the process is resolved.
	Question put and agreed to.
	Adjourned accordingly at eight minutes past Eight o'clock.